JUDGMENT 1. - All these writ petitions involved an indentical question of law and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The services of the petitioners stood terminated or their appointment letters had been cancelled or they had not been offered appointments inspite of their selection, only on the ground that on verification made by the respondent-Authority through the Local Administration, it had been revealed that petitioners had been subjected to criminal trial before applying for the employment in response to the advertisement for the posts and this factum was not disclosed by the petitioners while applying for employment. The submissions made by the teamed counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had been acquitted in the criminal trial or Final Report had been filed by the police after investigating the case, are of no consequence and not worth considering, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners had not been found non-suited for employment on the ground of their involvement in criminal cases, rather they had been found guilty of suppressing the material-fact while filling up the application forms for the said posts. 3. In the application forms, which the petitioners had filled-up, there were specific columns, i.e., Column Nos. 17 and 18, wherein the petitioners were asked to furnish certain information : Whether the applicant had ever been subjected to criminal case and if 'Yes' with what result, or whether any criminal case was pending against him? The petitioners had suppressed this fact and answered in negative while filling-up the said columns. On verification from the Local Administration when the respondent-Authority came to know that the petitioners had suppressed the material fact of having been involved in criminal cases, the impugned orders were passed. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners' involvement in criminal cases, particularly after acquittal or submitting the Final Report by the police, cannot be taken into account, is not worth consideration. Petitioners have not disputed the factum of their involvement in criminal cases nor they have denied the factum of suppression of material information or making misrepresentation on this issue, while filling up the application forms. Thus, it is admitted fact that petitioners obtained the employment by making false-statement/misrepresentation, which tentamounts to fraud. 4. Petitioners have not disputed the factum of their involvement in criminal cases nor they have denied the factum of suppression of material information or making misrepresentation on this issue, while filling up the application forms. Thus, it is admitted fact that petitioners obtained the employment by making false-statement/misrepresentation, which tentamounts to fraud. 4. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets the appointment by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such appointment cannot be sustained. (Vide S.P. Changulvaraiha Naidu v. Jagannathn and others, 1994 (1) SCC 1 ). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All.E.R. 349 , it has categorically been held that anything obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, cannot be allowed to be sustained. 5. In Andhra State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re : Rolling Mills, 1994 (2) SCC 647 and State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent prepetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafy evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law." 6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the impugned orders could not have been passed without giving petitioners and opportunity of hearing, is, also, preposterous for the reason that in such case where an order is obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, the principles of natural justice are not attracted to rectify the mistake which the Authority had committed because of the fraud played by the applicant. In U.R Junior Doctors Action Committee v. B. Shital Nandwani, AIR 1991 SC 908 , the students had got admission in M.B.B.S. Course by making misrepresentation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of applicability of the Rules of Natural Justice observing that under the circumstances in which such benefit had been taken by the candidates concerned, do not justify attraction of the Rules of Natural Justice by providing them an opportunity of hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of applicability of the Rules of Natural Justice observing that under the circumstances in which such benefit had been taken by the candidates concerned, do not justify attraction of the Rules of Natural Justice by providing them an opportunity of hearing. Even in a case where an applicant may not be responsible for playing fruad, his appointment can, also, be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing to him in case the Authority comes to the conclusion that the appointment had been made by playing fraud by the Members of the Selection Committee though the candidate had not payed any part/mischief in the said selection. In Krishna Yadav v. State of Havana, AIR 1994 SC 2166 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when the entire selection was strinking' "conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit", individual's innocence has no place as fraud enravels everything. 7. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC 100 , the Apex Court has observed as under "If by committing fruad any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer." 8. While deciding the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in District Collector and Chairman, U.S.W. School Society v. M. Thirupura Sandri Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655 , wherein it has been held that employment obtained by misrepresentation cannot be permitted to be continued. 9. In Ratan Lal v. Union of India and others, 1998(2) WLC (Raj.) 608 , this Court has considered this aspect and has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mangi Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1997(3) RLW 2017 , and of the Single Bench in Temple of Thakurji, Village Kansar v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1998 Raj. 85 , and came to the conclusion that employment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, if cancelled by the employer, should not be interfered by the Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. 10. A Division Bench of this Court while entertaining D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 357/1998, Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan and others, decided on 2.7.98. had passed the following order - "We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. We are in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge and the view taken by him. When the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341 IPC etc. then obviously he should not have been appointed on the post of Police Constable. He was supposed to disclose the fact that he was convicted and he was found guilty and given benefit of probation. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed." 11. Thus, in view of the above I find no force in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. *******