JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal filed under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th October, 1993 whereby he has dismissed the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the appellants are that they have to their credit Higher Secondary from Board of Secondary Education Ajmer and thereafter Diploma in teaching in the year 1986 from Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur. In pursuance of an advertisement for the posts of primary school teachers run by the Panchayat Samities, the petitioner-appellants applied for the same and they were selected and appointed as such. The petitioner-appellant No. 1 was selected by the District Establishment Committee, Pali and appointed in the Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur on 12.9.1988 and as alleged he was transferred from Pali to Jalore and was posted at Panchayat Samiti, Ahore. The appellant No. 2 was selected by the District Establishment Committee, Jalore and appointed w.e.f. 9.11.89. It is also alleged that the appellants were served with notices Anx. P/4 stating that as the State Government has been cheated by them by producing forged certificates, why their services may not be terminated. It was stated that the certificates obtained by them are forged, therefore, why a criminal case may not be instituted against them and further that as to why the amount paid to them as salary may not be recovered. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner-appellants approached this Court by way of writ petition on 10.3.1993. 3. This Court while issuing notice on 16.3.1993 ordered that in the meanwhile, services of the petitioners will not be terminated. 4. Reply to the writ petition was filed on 10.5:93 stating that as per the direction of the State Government issued to all the Panchayat Samitites enquiry was held against all the persons who obtained qualification from outside State and the documents were sent for verification. It was also stated that the petitioners never produced original mark-sheet of Diploma in Teaching (D.I.T.) and photostat copies of the documents and mark-sheets of the petitioners along with 48 other candidates were sent for verification with a messenger vide Anx. 1. It was also stated that the petitioners never produced original mark-sheet of Diploma in Teaching (D.I.T.) and photostat copies of the documents and mark-sheets of the petitioners along with 48 other candidates were sent for verification with a messenger vide Anx. 1. It was further stated that it was informed by Rani Durgawati Vishvavidyalaya, Jabalpur (M.P.) to respondent No. 1 vide letter on 1.10.1992 that the mark-sheets of the petitioner are forged which is evident from the endorsement made on Anx. R/3 and R/4. The respondents further stated that thereafter the petitioners had submitted a photocopy of the letter dated 6.2.93 (Anx. P/2) and an affidavit stating that Mahendra Singh & Kriparam has passed the D.I.T. from their institute. Again a messenger was sent to verify the veracity of the letter but the letter was found to be forged one as per report Anx. R/6 dated 30.3.93. It was prayed that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief and the petition may be dismissed with costs. 5. The learned Single Judge after considering the material on record dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 13.10.93 and directed to complete the enquiry within two months. Hence, this special appeal filed on 30.11.93. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants and perused the material on record. 7. Counsel for the appellants has mainly contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in not quashing the impugned order since they were passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without following the procedure laid down under the law. 8. Ordinarily, this court issue a writ in favour of a person who is holding appointment on substantive basis and whose service is terminated without notice and without following procedure. Rules of natural justice clearly warrant that no man Should be condemned unheard. At the same time writ jurisdiction vested under Article 226 is a discretionary remedy cannot be invoked for such person who secured appointment on the basis of a forged document and writ jurisdiction will not be exercised even though there may be a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. The said legal position has been followed by this Court in number of decisions. 10. In Varanasy Sanskrit University Varanashi Siksha Shastri Sangh Vs. 9. The said legal position has been followed by this Court in number of decisions. 10. In Varanasy Sanskrit University Varanashi Siksha Shastri Sangh Vs. State, S.B.C.W. Petition No. 379/91 decided on 4.2.92 the learned Single Judge after considering the material and the documents dated 30.10.90 of the University Grants Commission has held that Varanshi Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya, Varanasi is not recognised and as 'such no appointment can be given on the basis of this degree awarded by the institution which is unrecognised. 11. In Smt. Chandra Kanta Vs. Vikas Adhikari, P.S. Anoopgarh, S.B.C.W. Petition NO. 2933/93 decided on 30.9.93 the incumbents obtained appointment-on the basis of degree of B.Ed. from Oudh University. This Court has held the they are not entitled to remain in service as the petitioners neither appeared in the examination nor on rolls and obtained B.Ed. degree which was found to be forged. 12. In Shanker Lal Vs. State, S.B.C.W Petition No. 387/94 decided on 17.2.94 , the petitioner obtained degrees from B.Ed. examination from Mathili University (Mathili Vishwa Vidyapith), Darbhanga. This Court has held that persons who have secured employment on.the basis of the degrees which are forged and which cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as recognized, cannot claim indulgence of getting relief under Article 226.Reference may also be made to a decision rendered in Rameshwarlal Vs. P.S. Badisardri, S.B.C.W. Petition No. 5495/92, decided on 27.5.92 , wherein under similar circumstances without serving upon any notice, service of the incumbent was dispensed with as the alleged degree of B.Ed. passed from Puravanchal University, Jaunpur was found forged, this Court has not granted any indulgence. 13. In Mahesh Chand Vs. State, S.B.C.W. Petition No. 3695/91, decided on 13.12.91 the incumbents got appointment on the basis of certificate of Shiksha Shastri from Varanasy Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya on 20.8.88 but his services were abruptly terminated on 16.4.91. The learned Single Judge after considering the notification dated 11.12.74 and the fact of enquiry conducted on the direction of Jaipur bench and further looking to the fact that it has not been recognised by the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 while dismissing the writ petition held that the degree of Shiksha Shastri obtained from the Varanasy Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya cannot be treated to be equivalent to B.Ed. and the petitioner is not entitled to got appointment on the basis of that degree. 14. Likewise in Vinod Kumar Vs. and the petitioner is not entitled to got appointment on the basis of that degree. 14. Likewise in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B.C.W. Petition No. 1596/94, decided on 18th May 94 , the incumbent secured appointment on the basis of a degree of Shiksha Shastri from the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya and this Court after considering various decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court held that this Court cannot issue writs, which may directly or indirectly encourage or perpetuate fraud and dismissed the writ petition. 15. In view of the above, it is clear that the principles of natural justice cannot be pressed into service in the cases where fraudulent practices are involved and no indulgence can be granted by this Court under Article 226. In the instant case, the photostat copies of the mark-sheets Anx. R/3 & R/4 on the basis of which the petitioners secured appointment had been found to be forged one and they had been successful in misleading the concerned authorities for pretty long time and the forgery was unearthed after the respondent made enquiry on complaints from Rani Durgavati University Jabalpur. Further the appellants produced a copy of letter dated 6.2.93 (Anx. P/2) purported to be written by the Assistant Registrar (Examination), Rani Durgavati University, Jablapur which was also ultimately found to be forged one as per report Anx. R/6, which has not been rebutted by the appellants. The appellants have not been able to show otherwise before us. Therefore, prima facie, looking to the conduct of the appellants, we are of the opinion, that the petitioner-appellants cannot be granted any relief by this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or violation of procedure laid down under the Rules. 16. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge on one more ground also that the orders Annxs. P/4 and P/5 are not merely the notices but orders of termination as the decision to dispense with the services of the appellants has already been taken by the Secretary of the Zila Parishad and the orders Annexure P/4 and P/5 were empty formality, which has been admitted by the respondents in their reply. P/4 and P/5 are not merely the notices but orders of termination as the decision to dispense with the services of the appellants has already been taken by the Secretary of the Zila Parishad and the orders Annexure P/4 and P/5 were empty formality, which has been admitted by the respondents in their reply. In this connection suffice it to say that even if what the appellants have contended is right then too the fact remains is that the appellants secured appointment on the basis of forged diploma/mark-sheets and they cannot take any advantage out of the observations made by the learned Single Judge. In the present case, the appellants have played fraud not only with the authorities but also with the Court and granting of any relief to such persons will amount to perpetuation of illegality which has been committed at the time of giving appointment. As stated above no relief can be granted on above premises. The enquiry was to be completed within two months as per order dated 13.10.93 and by now it must have been completed. In case the enquiry is not completed two months more time is granted to the respondents to do so. 17. Before parting with the case, looking to the increasing number of such type of cases in the courts, we are constrained to observe that the concerned authorities while making selections should remain more cautious and careful, so that such situations may not arise and one should not get appointment on the basis of forged or on the basis of degrees from unrecognised institutes. It is hoped that if any selection is made without verifying the genuineness of the documents or otherwise, the State Government will take suitable action against the responsible officers, after holding necessary enquiry from independent investigating agency. 18. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed without there being any force. A copy of this order be sent to the Education Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for information & necessary action.Spl. Appeal Dismissed. *******