JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is pending since 1994 for admission. As agreed, the case has been heard finally. 2. The petitioners-Maharaj Singh and Raghuraj Singh (Petitioner No. 1 and 2 respectively) have filed this writ petition on 24.3.1994, challenging the order dated 24.12.1993, whereby, the services of the petitioners were terminated. The case of the petitioners are that the petitioner No. 1-Maharaj Singh passed his Secondary and Hr. Secondary School examinations in the years 1975 and 1976 respectively from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, awarded degrees of B.A. and M.A. (Geography) in the years 1979 and 1981 respectively by the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and was awarded degree of B.Ed. in, the year 1987 by the Avadh University, Faizabad (UP), against Roll No. L-47561. The marks-sheet of B.Ed. has been filed as Annexure-2B. Petitioner No. 2-Raghuraj Singh passed his Secondary and Hr. Secondary School Examinations in the years 1978 and 1979 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, awarded degrees of B.A. and M.A. (Pol. Scien.) in the years 1983 and 1986 respectively by the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and was awarded degree of B.Ed. in the year 1987, by the Avadh University, Faizabad (UP), against Roll No. 75245. He has filed marks-sheet as Annexure-A-4 and provisional degree of B.Ed. as Annexure-4-A. On advertisement issued by the respondents, the petitioners applied, selected and were appointed as Teacher Gr. III. Petitioner No. 1 was posted at Govt. Primary School, Chavand, Panchayat Samiti-Sarda, District-Udaipur vide , order dated 18.11.1988 (Annexure A-5). Thereafter he was transferred and posted at Government Primary School, Gadhi Jalimsingh, District-Bharatpur vide order dated 28.6.1991. Petitioner No. 2 was posted at Government Primary School, Balchakpura, Panchayat Samiti-Roopwas, District-Bharatpur vide order dated 28.6.1989 (Annex. A-6). Thereafter, he was transferred to Primary School, Girdharpur (Sewar) on 24.9.1989. 3. It is alleged that to remove some suspicion the respondents issued show cause notices to the petitioners to the effect that they submitted forged documents. The respondents were informed by the Avadh University, Faizabad, vide letter dated 16.9.1992 (Annex. 8), that marks sheet and degrees of the petitioners were found to be genuine. Again show cause notice dated 27.6.1993 (Annex. 9 and 9-A) were issued to the petitioners and they filed their clarifications on 5.7.1993 (Annex. 10 and 10- A). Another show cause notice dated 8.11.1993 (Annex. 8), that marks sheet and degrees of the petitioners were found to be genuine. Again show cause notice dated 27.6.1993 (Annex. 9 and 9-A) were issued to the petitioners and they filed their clarifications on 5.7.1993 (Annex. 10 and 10- A). Another show cause notice dated 8.11.1993 (Annex. 11 and 11-A) were issued by the Block Development Officer and the petitioners filed their clarifications on 16.11.1993 (Annex. 12 and 12-A). It is alleged that without hearing them and without issuing any show cause notice the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 24.12.1993 (Annex. 14 and 14- A), served on them on 31.12.1993. Hence, the petitioners filed this joint writ petition. No stay application was moved. 4. Notice to show cause was issued to the respondents on 18.10.1995. In response thereof, the respondents filed their respective reply. Preliminary objection has been raised that the joint writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. So far as the qualifications are concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners have to satisfy the authorities about genuineness of their testimonials which are subject to verification. It is submitted that the degree was issued by the Avadh University at the centre Ka. Su. Saket Post Graduate College, Faizabad, whereas, in the document dated 13.10.1993 (Anne. 13) the name of the College is only Ka. Su. Saket College, Faizabad. Document (Annex. 4) indicates that marks sheet of B.Ed. pertains to Kisan Post Graduate College, Behraich and it has not been issued by the Avadh University as stated by the petitioners. It . is stated that vide letter dated 22.6.1993 the Vice-Chancellor of the Avadh University has made it clear that both the petitioners had never undergo training of B.Ed. from that University and that they were never issued any such degrees. It is also submitted that as per documents (Annex. A-2) and (Annex. 7) produced by the petitioners after 7.6.1990 in the conducted enquiry it has come that the petitioners had never underwent training of B.Ed. and they were not issued any such degree and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that without affording opportunity of hearing their services have been terminated by the respondents. and they were not issued any such degree and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that without affording opportunity of hearing their services have been terminated by the respondents. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this court in case " Bhagwan Sahay Shrimal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." (DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 583/1995. decided on 20.9.1995), wherein, it was observed that before passing order of termination principles of natural justice are required to be complied with and the order of Termination was set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the above cited case, admittedly 'no opportunity of hearing was given, whereas, in the instant case, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners and, on enquiry, it has come on record that the petitioners never underwent training of B.Ed. and they were not issued any such degree. As such, the petitioners cannot take benefit of the above cited case. That apart, in Bhagwan Sahay Shrimal's case (supra) the Division Bench of this court- has not considered the earlier decision rendered on 9.9.1994 by the Division Bench of this Court in case ` Mahendra Singh & Ors. v. Zila Parishad, Jalore & Ors.", (WLR 1995 Raj, 35) , wherein it was held that in the cases whereas fradulent practices are involved in getting appointments on .the basis of forged or on .the basis of degrees from. unrecognised institutes no indulgence can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution. He also relied on RLR 1995(1) 358 " Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Anr.", AIR 1981. SC 136. 7. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and have gone through the case law cited by the learned counsel. 8. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing before any action is taken against a person, but, at. the same time, the powers vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are discretionary and the remedy available under this Article cannot be invoked by a person or persons who have secured appointments on the basis of forged documents as this court is not meant to perpetuate illegality. the same time, the powers vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are discretionary and the remedy available under this Article cannot be invoked by a person or persons who have secured appointments on the basis of forged documents as this court is not meant to perpetuate illegality. In the instant case, the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity by issuing notices notices on 27.6.1993 and 8.11.1993 and the petitioners tried to clarity the genuineness of the marks sheet and degrees, but, on enquiry being made by the Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, the Vice-Chancellor, Audh University has, vide letter dated 22.6.1993, informed that the petitioners did not undergo training of B.Ed. and they are not issued any such degrees by the said University falsify the case of the petitioners. On the basis of aforesaid letter, the services of the petitioners were terminated. In view of this, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. More-so, the petitioners have not produced their 'original documents relating to B.Ed. examination despite order dated 18.10.1995 and asking by this Court during the course of the arguments. So no indulgence can be granted to the petitioners. 9. In case " Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (RLR 1995(1) 358) this court held that the petitioner, who obtained appointment on the basis of degree awarded by fictitious institution, is not entitled for any relief in writ jurisdiction. 10. So far as decision in Bhagwan Sahay Shrimal's case (supra) is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court, while deciding Bhagwan Sahay Shrimal's case, has not considered the earlier decision rendered on the point by this court in Mahendra Singh's case (supra), wherein, it was held that in the cases where fradulent practices are involved in getting the appointment on the basis of forged or on the basis of degrees from unrecognised institutes, no indulgence can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice cannot be pressed into service in such cases. In this case, the petitioners have also not been able to show what prejudice has been caused and they have not produced the original degree awarded to them to satisfy the conscious of the court and, under the circumstances of the given case, the only conclusion will be termination of services for want of genuine documents or degrees. Thus the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. 11. In case " VRG & GAMC & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh", ( AIR 1972 SC 51 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : "It is strange that a co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court should have tried to sit on judgment over a decision of another Bench of that Court. It is regrettable that the learned Judges who decided the latter case overlooked the fact that they were bound by the earlier decision. If they wanted that the earlier should be recognised, they should have referred the question in issue to a larger Bench and not to ignore the earlier decision." 12. In case " Dinesh'Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan", (1996 DNJ (Raj.) 377) , wherein, such point was' in issue, considering over all aspects of the matter the above observations made by their Lordships of Supreme Court and Division Bench decisions rendered in case " Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Special Appeal No. 372/94, decided on 3.5.1995) and Mahendra Singh's case (supra), this court has held as under : "In view of the above settled position, the petitioner cannot take any advantage out of the Division Bench decision cited, since in that case admittedly the earlier Division Bench decisions were not considered. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition on the basis of the Division Bench decision." 13. The principle enunciated in above decisions and non- consideration thereof in Bhagwan Sahay Shrimal's case (supra) has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In this view of the matter and under the circumstances of the case, I find no reason to differ with the well reasoned above cited judgments. Therefore, the petitioners cannot take any benefit from Bhagwan Sahay Shrimal's case (supra). 14. Consequently, for the reasons mentioned above and in Dinesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra), and what I have discussed above, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the petitioners cannot take any benefit from Bhagwan Sahay Shrimal's case (supra). 14. Consequently, for the reasons mentioned above and in Dinesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra), and what I have discussed above, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******