These special appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 19. 9. 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the two petitions filed by the respondent employee have been allowed directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called the corporation) to reinstate the respondent employee with full back wages and all consequential benefits. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that the Corporation advertised certain posts of Assistants. The respondent employee submitted his application along with a caste certificate dated 5. 10. 1970 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Gorakhpur certifying that the he was a Shilpkar (Artisan) by caste, which falls in the category of Scheduled Caste. The respondent employee was selected and appointed vide appointment letter dated 6. 12. 1971. After about 12 years on 5. 10. 1983, on receiving a complaint, the Corporation asked the said employee to submit his original caste certificate whichhe submitted on 5 12. 1983. The Corporation also wrote to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to furnish information about the caste of the said employee. The Additional District Magistrate submitted a report dated 4. 2. 1988 after holding the enquiry without involving the said employee, that he was a Badhai (Carpenter) bycaste and not a Shilpkar. The Corporation on receiving the said report, issued a charge-sheet dated 22. 3. 1988 on the ground that the said employee had procured the employment as an Assistant in the Corporation on the basis of a false wrong caste certificate. During the course of enquiry, the Corporation again asked the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to clarify about the caste of the said employee and in response thereto, the District Magistrate vide letter dated 15. 10. 1989 informed the Corporation that upon due enquiry, he was of the view that the castecertificate submitted by the respondent employee at the time of entry in servicewas doubtful as it appeared that he was by caste a Badhai (Carpenter ). Theenquiry report was submitted on 11. 8. 1990 and after giving an opportunity to thesaid employee for submitting his explanation, the final order of termination ofservices of the respondent employee was passed on 9. 5. 1991 by the Disciplinaryauthority, against which he preferred an appeal which was also dismissed videorder dated 17. 1. 1992. Theenquiry report was submitted on 11. 8. 1990 and after giving an opportunity to thesaid employee for submitting his explanation, the final order of termination ofservices of the respondent employee was passed on 9. 5. 1991 by the Disciplinaryauthority, against which he preferred an appeal which was also dismissed videorder dated 17. 1. 1992. Being aggrieved, two writ petitions were filed by the said employee challenging the said order of termination, which merged into the order of Appellate Authority as well as for quashing the report dated 15. 10. 1989 submitted by the District Magistrate wherein a doubt regarding the caste certificate ofthe said employee had been expressed. 3. T he learned Single Judge considered the matter at length and came to the conclusion that the report submitted by the District Magistrate was prepared behind the back of the said employee and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. The Disciplinary Authority had recorded a finding that the said employee failed to disprove the report submitted by the District Magistrate, which itself hadbeen prepared behind his back, therefore, both the petitions were allowed directing for reinstatement of the respondent employee with full back wages and all consequential benefits. Hence these two special appeals. 4. We have heard Shn Manish Goel, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri P N Saxena, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, for the respondent employee. 5. It has been canvassed on behalf of the appellants that once a post isreserved for a particular category, it has to be filled up by the candidate belonging to the said category alone unless the Appointing Authority takes a decision otherwise in case of non-availability of a suitable candidate of reserved category. Obtaining an employment by misrepresentation or by filing false certificate amounts to usurpation of the right of the candidate belonging to that reserved category andsuch an employee does not have a right to hold the post. In the instant case, once the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the said employee did not belong to the category of Scheduled Caste, the Disciplinary Authority is right in arriving at the conclusion that he had no right to hold the post and the termination order could not have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In the instant case, once the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the said employee did not belong to the category of Scheduled Caste, the Disciplinary Authority is right in arriving at the conclusion that he had no right to hold the post and the termination order could not have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. 6. On the contrary, Shri P. N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent employee has submitted that no finding of fact has been recorded by anyauthority, whosoever, to the effect that the said employee did not belong to Scheduled Caste. Only remarks have been made doubting as to whether he belongs to the caste of Shilpkar or Badhai. The report submitted by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, so heavily relied upon by the Corporation, merely expresses a doubt regarding the correctness of the certificate and there is no specific finding that the certificate had been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud or he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. The Inquiry Officer committed an error in placing theonus to prove that the report of the District Magistrate was wrong, on the respondent employee though onus was on the Corporation to prove that the certificate ofcaste had been obtained by fraud and was false. The respondent employee hadbeen appointed in the year 1970. A period of 37 years has lapsed. He is at theverge of retirement. After the judgment of the learned Single Judge, he has been reinstated as there was no interim order by this Court in appeals. Therefore, the interest of justice requires no interference at such a belated stage. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the settled legal proposition that an employment obtained by misrepresentation or fraud cannot be permitted to bear fruits as fraud vitiates any such transaction and such an order cannot be sustained in the eyesof law. Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal. " (Vide S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 ). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All. E. R. 349, the Court observed without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 ). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All. E. R. 349, the Court observed without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything. " 9. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gar Re-Rolling Mills and another, AIR 1994 SC 2151 ; and Sfafe of Maharashtra and others v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 , the Honble Apex Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration 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 crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law. " 10. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. , AIR 1992 SC 1555 , it has been held as under "fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. " 11. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1165 , the Apex Court observed that "fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus el jus nun qu. am cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which hasnever lost its temper over all these centuries. 12. The ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruits and benefit to the persons whoplayed 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 and others v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100, the Apex Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 , observed as under. "if by committing fraud 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. " KJ. "if by committing fraud 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. " KJ. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in S. Partap Singh v. Sfate of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 ; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitra Devi and others, (2003) 8 SCC 319 ; and Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325. 14. The Common Law doctrine of public policy can be enforced wherever an action affects/offends public interest or where harmful result of permitting the injury to the public at large is evident. 15. Moreso, if initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannorsanctify the same. "sub/a Fundamento cedit opus"-a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case legal maxim "nullus Commodum capcre Potest De Injuria Sua Propria" applies. (Vide Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lalyadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340 ). The violators of law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subject matter of inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Lily Thomas v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650 ). 16. No person can claim any right arising out of his wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Or/fur ). 17. A post meant to be filled by a particular category has to be filled up by a candidate belonging to that category and if any other person occupies the said post, it would amount to transgressing the constitutional/legal rights of the candi date belonging to the said reserved category and in such an eventuality, the employee does not have a right to hold the post. (Vide Stafe of Maharastra and others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar, (2007) 1 SCC 80 ; Additional General Manager, Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Etectricals Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, (2007) 5 SCC 336 ; Bank of India and another v. Avinash D. Mandivikarand others, AIR 2005 SC 3395 ; Lilly Kutty v. Scrutiny Committee SC&st and others, AIR 2005 SC 4313 ; and Stafe of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, (2001) 18. R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. Sfafe of Kerala and others, AIR 2004 SC 1469 , the Honble Supreme Court held thata person who procures an appointment on a post meant for reserved category candidate on the basis of a false caste certifi cate, cannot be held to be a person holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India for the reason that such an appointment cannot be an appointment in the eye of law and in such an eventuality, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are not attracted. Right to hold a post accrues only from a valid appointment and not from a void appointment. Any appointment made on the basis of false caste certificate is void and nonest. 19. In State Bank of India and others v. Luther Kondhpan, (1999) 9 SCC 268 , the Honble Supreme Court held that where the copy of the enquiry report had been furnished to the delinquent employee and the finding of fact had been re corded therein that the said employee had procured the employment by fraudu lent means and the certificate of caste had been cancelled, the principles of natural justice may not necessarily be applied to full extent. 20. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sushil, (2006) 2 SCC 471 , the Supreme Court held that where an authority came to the conclusion that the employment had been procured by fraudulent means, the period of service ren dered by such a delinquent and as to whether his service has been blemishless become meaningless for the reason that the appointment stiil remains void and he should not be granted relief oon equity. In the said case, the delinquent em ployee had rendered 14 years uninterrupted and blemishless service, 21. In Navdeep v. State of Punjab and others, (2006) 9 SCC 500 , the Honble Supreme Court reiterated the same view. However in the peculiar facts of the case and taking into account that the candidate was even otherwise eligible and suitable for appointment, asked the State Government to reconsider the case as the employee therein had rendered TO years service without any blemish. 22. However in the peculiar facts of the case and taking into account that the candidate was even otherwise eligible and suitable for appointment, asked the State Government to reconsider the case as the employee therein had rendered TO years service without any blemish. 22. Thus, in view of the above, law can be summarised that a post meant to be filled up by a reserved category candidate, if filled up by a person not belonging to the said category by any fraudulent means, the appointment remains non est, his appointment being void. In such an eventuality, neither the principles of natu ral justice apply to the full extent nor Article 311 of the Constitution of India is attracted. He can also not claim the relief on equity that he had been in service for a very long period uninterruptedly and had a good service record. 23. The submissions made by Shri Saxena, learned Senior Counsel that the onus to prove as to whether the caste certificate was false or the report of the District Magistrate that the caste of the respondent employee as shown in the caste certificate was not free from doubt, was-on the Corporation and it has wrongly been shifted on the respondent employee in the enquiry report itself, cannot be accepted as the matter stands concluded by a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Q. Sundarasan v. Union of India and another, (1995) 4 SCC 644 , wherein the Supreme Court considered a case where the employee continued in service for 30 years and the plea had been taken that the caste certificate was issued by the Competent Authority in 1956 at the time of entry in service, it should not be asked at a belated stage to prove that he was not a Scheduled Caste. The Court rejected the contention holding that where it was held on evidence in a departmental enquiry that the appointee did not belong to Scheduled Caste and he had procured appointment in a reserved quota by submitting a false certificate, the onus to prove otherwise was on him and such an onus does not cease merely because of continuation in service for a long period. 24. However, the question is as to whether the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, referred to herein above, applies in the facts of this case. The caste certificate dated 5. 24. However, the question is as to whether the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, referred to herein above, applies in the facts of this case. The caste certificate dated 5. 10 1970 had been issued to the said employee by one Shri Ram Lalbhai, M. L. A. that the said employee belonged to Shilpkar community, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste under the Scheduled Castes/tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1956. The said certificate had been endorsed bythe Additional District Magistrate and the same had been submitted by the saidemployee along with his application. On enquiry by the Corporation, a subsequent letter dated 4. 2. 1988 was sent by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Gorakhpur. A true translation of which reads as under: "thorough enquiry was conducted in the issue in question. After enquiry, the Tehsildar, Sadar has informed vide his report dated 18. 1. 1988 that Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, son of Shri Abhitaj Sharma, resident of Bashratpur belongs to Badhai and not Shilpkar (Scheduled Caste ). " 25. Another letter written by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) dated 26. 12. 1988 makes it crystal clear that Shri Sharma belongs to the caste of Shilpkar and was a Scheduled Caste. A true translation of the relevant part of the said letter reads as under: "on the basis of the enquiry report dated 28. 11. 1988 wherein documentary and oral evidence was recorded by the Tehsildar Sadar, Gorakhpur, it was evident that Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, son of Shri Abhi Raj Sharma, resident of Bashratpur was a Shilpkar by caste which belongs to Scheduled Caste, The District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer, Gorakhpur has affirmed the said finding vide his report dated 13. 12. 1988. " 26. On further enquiry, the District Magistrate sent a letter dated 25. 10 1989 to the Corporation, a true translation of relevant part of the said letter reads as under: "enquiry was got conducted in respect of the verification of the caste of Shri Sharma, by the concerned Department. On the basis the evidence annexed, the actual position of verification of his caste is found to be doubtful. On the basis of the said enquiry report, it appears that Shri Sharma is Badhai by caste. " 27. The enquiry report stood concluded making the observation that the delinquent failed to disprove the report of the District Magistrate. 28. On the basis the evidence annexed, the actual position of verification of his caste is found to be doubtful. On the basis of the said enquiry report, it appears that Shri Sharma is Badhai by caste. " 27. The enquiry report stood concluded making the observation that the delinquent failed to disprove the report of the District Magistrate. 28. The cumulative effect of reading of the documents, referred to herein above, is that there is no finding of fact recorded by any officer that the said employee had played any misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining the certificate nor is there any conclusive finding that he does not belong to the Scheduled Caste. Contradictory certificates/reports have been submitted by the District Ad ministration on the same issue. The caste certificate dated 5 10. 1970 as enn dorsed by the Additional District Magistrate, on the basis whereof the respondent was employed, is not a forged document. Its issuance by the concerned author ity has not been doubted. On the contrary, the said document was-subjected to an enquiry and the report of the District Magistrate dated 26. 12. 1988 records that the Tehsildar in his report dated 26. 11. 1988 found the respondent to be of "shilpkar" caste which is acknowledged as a Scheduled Caste. This report of the Tehsildar was founded on a local inspection, oral and documentary evidence collected by the Tehsildar. Not only this, the said conclusion was confirmed by the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer vide his report dated 13. 12 1988. The said certificate has not been cancelled by any Competent Authority and all subsequent enquiries were conducted by the Administration without notice to the respondent employee. Admittedly, while submitting different reports by the District Administration, the said employee was not given any opportunity to participate in the enquiry and all the reports were prepared behind his back The reports wherein contrary findings have been recorded should not have been relied upon as the same had been prepared behind the back of the respondent employee, in view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Rattal Lalsharma v. Managing Committee. Dr. Hari Ram Co-education Higher Secondary School, AIR 1993 SC 2155 ; and Gulzar Singhv. Sub Divisional Magistrate, (1999) 3 SCC 107 20. Dr. Hari Ram Co-education Higher Secondary School, AIR 1993 SC 2155 ; and Gulzar Singhv. Sub Divisional Magistrate, (1999) 3 SCC 107 20. The law referred herein above, which provides that the employment obtained by misrepresentation or fraud stands vitiated, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge on this count. 30. Be that as it may, as the learned Single Judge has allowed both the petitions on technical grounds, the Corporation ought to have been given an op portunity to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. We would have adopted that course but considering the fact that the said employee was appointed 37years ago and is now over 57 years of age and is at the verge of retirement, il will be too harsh to ask him to face a fresh enquiry particularly when he has been reinstated after the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the year 2002. Once a discretion has been exercised by a learned Single Judge, then unless there are obvious reasons for interference, the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the same. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19. 9. 2002 to the extent that the said employee would be entitled to 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Appeals stand disposed of finally. 31. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. .