Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 15.4.2003 of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga addressed to the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Hayaghat informing that the service of the petitioner as Auxilary Nurse Midwife at Primary Health Centre, Hayaghat is terminated with immediate effect. Petitioner is further aggrieved by order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure-7) whereby the Incharge Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre informed her about the termination of her appointment. Prayer of this petitioner in this writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to quash the aforesaid communication and the order. 2. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement for filling up the post of Auxilary Nurse Midwife, hereinafter referred to as the Midwife, she offered her candidature claiming to have passed the Secondary School Examination held by the Bihar School Examination Board in the year 1988. According to the petitioner, her candidature was considered and she was asked to appear before the Selection Board on 26th of June, 1989 and after she had undergone the selection process, by letter dated 16.6.1989 she was chosen for training as Midwife. While conveying to the petitioner about her selection she was asked to report along with original certificates which according to the petitioner she gave, on several occasions and after the verification same were returned to her. After the selection petitioner was allowed to complete two years training which she completed in the year 1992. 3. After the petitioner had undergone the training successfully, by letter dated 29th of May, 1995 (Annexure-2) she was appointed as Midwife in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200 to 1800.00 and posted at Primary Health Centre, Pokhrarna. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter of appointment, petitioner joined as Midwife. However, later on by letter dated 30th of March, 1996 (Annexure-3) she was asked to produce her letter of appointment, Midwife training certificate, certificate relating to educational qualification and the mark-sheet. According to the petitioner, she submitted the required certificate and the mark-sheet and after verification the same was retuned but all of a sudden by letter dated 3.5.2002 (Annexure-5) the petitioner was informed that the discrepancies have been found in the mark-sheet submitted by her at the time when she offered her candidature to undergo training as Midwife and the mark-sheet given by her during the course of enquiry. Accordingly the Civil Surgeon, being prima facie satisfied, that petitioner had obtained the training of Midwife by producing fabricated mark-sheet, she was asked to show cause as to why her services be not terminated. Petitioner submitted her reply (Annexure-6) and in that she asserted that according to her knowledge no interpolation has been made in the record. The plea put forward by the petitioner was considered and ultimately it was found that petitioner got herself selected for training as Midwife on the basis of the forged mark-sheet and accordingly her appointment was terminated. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 5 in which it has been stated that the petitioner while offering her candidature for training as Midwife filed the mark-sheet showing that she had passed the secondary examination in first division securing 572 marks and got selected for training on such a claim but later on, it was found that, in fact, she had secured only 512 marks and passed the examination in second division. It has been further stated, that had the petitioner produced correct mark-sheet she would not have been selected. It has further been stated that she had obtained the training as Midwife leading to her appointment as such by producing a forged certificate. Petitioner by letter dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure-H) was asked to show cause as to why her service be not terminated. It was pointed out that during the course of enquiry it has been found that instead of 572 marks as claimed by her, she had obtained 512 marks only. Petitioner submitted her reply and asserted that she had not committed any mistake. However the allegations made in the show cause notice that she had obtained 512 marks but got selected on the ground that she had secured 572 marks have not been denied. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga considered the show cause filed by the petitioner and found the same to be unsatisfactory, hence by letter dated 15.5.2003. (Annexure-I/1) informed the Incharge Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, where the petitioner was working, to terminate her services. Accordingly by the order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure-7) the service of the petitioner has been terminated. (Annexure-I/1) informed the Incharge Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, where the petitioner was working, to terminate her services. Accordingly by the order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure-7) the service of the petitioner has been terminated. From the pleading of the party it is evident that the petitioner was selected for training as Midwife which ultimately led to her appointment as such on the ground that she had secured 572 marks in the Secondary School Examination but in fact she had got 512 marks in the said examination. It is further evident that before terminating the service, petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause which she availed and in that also she did not assert that she had secured 572 marks. Her vague reply is that she had not committed any mistake, 5. Mr. Pramod Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in fact petitioner never claimed that she had secured 572 marks in the Secondary School Examination which led to her selection for training as Midwife and ultimate appointment and, as such petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on the ground that her selection was made on the premise that she had secured 572 marks. In support of this submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Birendra Kumar Singh, 2004 (2) BLJR 1231 . My attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the said judgment, which reads as follows :- - "The modality provided is that before a person is terminated from his services he should be given adequate opportunity. It should be followed by a proper inquiry, as far as possible beyond reasonable doubt and on being satisfied that fraud may have occurred by collusion in arranging such an appointment, consequential administrative action must visit the colluders simultaneously. This also gives an impression to the Court that the scam known as "Naukri Scam" is being generated as a repeat performance of the past. It appears that there is an engineered plan, in effect, to kick out as many as possible so that there is a next phase to recruit as many numbers through the back door. Each matter will have to be inquired into and both the giver and the receiver be proceeded against departmentally as also the criminal action against both simultaneously." 6. Each matter will have to be inquired into and both the giver and the receiver be proceeded against departmentally as also the criminal action against both simultaneously." 6. JC to SCI however appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner having first got selected for training as Midwife and thereafter appointed as such on the basis of forged mark-sheet, respondents rightly terminated her service. He also points out that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner instead of supporting her case, goes against her. 7. Having considered the rival contentions I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh and the decision relied on, instead of supporting petitioners case, goes against her. Petitioner was selected for training on the ground that she had secured 572 marks in the Secondary School Examination, which she undisputedly had not secured but had secured only 512 marks. This marks could not have qualified her for selection for training as Midwife. The plea that she had not produced any certificate claiming to have secured 572 marks but somebody else might have inserted the same leading to her selection, is over simplifying the matter. Fact of the matter is that the petitioner had not secured requisite marks for selection as Midwife and on the basis of 572 marks she has been selected. Thus her selection had been effected on the basis of fraud which vitiates her appointment. In fact before terminating her service, she was given a show cause notice to which she replied but the same was found unsatisfactory. Accordingly her service has been terminated. I do not find any error in the same. 8. Now reverting to the decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar (supra) it is evident that this Court has in so many words held that a person who had obtained appointment illegally has to suffer but at the same time the persons responsible for making illegal appointment be also penalised. Here in the present case, it is on the basis of forged mark-sheet that the petitioner has been selected, True it is that at the time of verification of mark-sheet, the authorities should have been more vigilant but from that it cannot be said that they also deserve to be punished. Thus the decision referred to above in no way comes to the rescue of the petitioner. Thus the decision referred to above in no way comes to the rescue of the petitioner. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.