Judgment G.C. Bharuka, J. The present writ application has been filed by the sole petitioner for directing the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner with effect from April, 1993. The petitioner was appointed as a B. Sc. trained teacher on 8.1.1982 in the monthly stipend of Rs.175/- as a graduate trained teacher. The letter of appointment dated 10th December, 1981 has been filed as Annexure 1'. The condition no. 2 of this appointment order provided that the stipend will be payable only after furnishing of all the original educational and training certificates and if any of the certificates is found to be forged, then the said appointment will stand cancelled retrospectively and in such situation apart from any of her legal action he will be liable to refund the entire stipend amount received by him. While the certificates were in process of verification he was paid stipend @ Rs.175/- per month only for two months and thereafter for the months of February and March, 1983 he received salary in the pay scale of Rs.850.-1360/- meant for trained graduate. In the meantime on verification his teachers' training certificate was found to be forged and, accordingly, his salary was stopped from April, 1983. Since as per the terms of appointment his services stood ipso facto determined and cancelled the petitioner filed a writ application in this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 1683 of 1988 which was disposed of by order dated 31.8.1988 (Annexure 9'), wherein the petitioner was directed to file a representation before the District Education Officer, Munger which was to be disposed of by the said officer within three months. Accordingly, the petitioner was given a show cause notice (as contained in Annexure 10') directing him to file his educational and training certificate in original. Thereafter the petitioner was heard at this stage. The petitioner took the stand that he is a Graduate simpliciter and he had not obtained any training. Accordingly, the District Superintendent of Education by his order dated 7.3.1989 (Annexure 12'), while disposing of his representation held that the petitioner had obtained the appointment on a misrepresentation, because from the records and even the service book, which was duly signed by the petitioner 'he had represented that he is a trained graduate. Accordingly, direction was sought from the respondent-Director, Primary Education for taking appropriate action against the petitioner. Accordingly, direction was sought from the respondent-Director, Primary Education for taking appropriate action against the petitioner. The Director in his counter affidavit has filed copy of his order dated 27.8.1993 (Annexure ‘A’) wherein he has, inter alia, taken the view that since the petitioner has obtained the appointment on the basis of forged training certificate, therefore, the petitioner apart from being liable to be prosecuted, his services should be terminated and amounts paid to him should be realised. 2. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, 1carned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Director could not have passed the order like Annexure ‘A’ without granting appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this connection he has placed reliance on the case Shrawan Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 309 : 1991 (1) PLJR 68 (SC) wherein it has been held that even in case of 'invalid appointment appropriate orders can be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person and then come to a conclusion whether the appointment was valid or invalid and in case it is found that such appointees had joined their duties and worked for some time then they will be entitled for salary for such period. 3. In the present case it is a matter of record that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the post of an Assistant Teacher in graduate trained scale on a misrepresentation that he had done teachers' training course and passed that examination. At a subsequent stage when his this stand was found to be false he has tried to alter his position by saying that he had never claimed to have any training qualification. This is essentially a question of fact and after due notice to the petitioner and hearing him pursuant to order of this Court, the District Education Officer had found the stand of the petitioner to be untenable. The fact has merely been reiterated by the Director, Primary Education. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not granted any' reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing of the orders in question. 4. The fact has merely been reiterated by the Director, Primary Education. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not granted any' reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing of the orders in question. 4. Now even on affidavit the petitioner has admitted in this proceeding that he is not a trained graduate but has failed to explain as to how he was appointed on the post of a trained graduate teacher even though he was a graduate simpliciter. It is difficult to accept such pleas. 5. From the facts as noticed above, it is clear that the salary of the petitioner was stopped from April, 1983 since his training certificate was found to be forged and as I have noticed above, in view of the very condition of his appointment contained in Annexure 1', the letter of appointment, his services stood ipso facto determined and cancelled, since he was not possessed of teachers' training qualification. 6. In the cases like the present one where public appointments are sought to be obtained on misrepresentations and by playing frauds on the authorities, no relief can be granted to the claimants under writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.