JUDGMENT : Dr. B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed for seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Orissa Judicial Service, Class II pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2003-2004 and quashing the Order Dated 22.12.2005 ( Annex. - 18) rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for the said appointment. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Orissa Public Service Commission ( hereinafter referred to as "Commission" ) issued Advertisement No. 10 of 2003-2004 on 17.11.2003 inviting applications for competitive examinations for appointment to 121 posts of Orissa Judicial Service, Class II by direct appointment. Out of the said vacancies 23 were reserved for Socially and Economically Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as "SEBC") to which the Petitioner belonged. Petitioner also applied in pursuance of the said advertisement and succeeded in the written examination. He was called for to face the interview on 21.6.2004 and his original documents, certificate of caste etc. were also examined. The attestation form was also filled up by the Petitioner on the direction of the Opposite Parties wherein he had to make a declaration whether he had been convicted by any court of law and if so to furnish details. The Petitioner answered in the negative. Result of the said examination was declared on 30.6.2004. The provisional merit list contained 55 names. Name of the Petitioner found place at serial 54 in the said merit list. The said list was sent for approval to the State Government and it was approved as required under Rule 21(1) of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 ( hereinafter called the "Rules of 1994") vide letter dated 28.7.2004. The original documents of the Petitioner were examined on 3.8.2004. He also faced the medical examination on 1.9.2004. The Opposite Parties offered appointment to 49 candidates out of the said list on 25.10.2004 and 5 candidates on 9.11.2004. Ignoring the claim of the Petitioner, the candidate whose name appeared at serial No. 55 was also appointed. Petitioner made a representation on 17.11.2004 to the Law Department of the State Government raising the grievance that he had been given hostile discrimination by the Opposite Parties. Petitioner made another representation dated 19.2.2005 that no criminal case was pending against him. Ignoring the claim of the Petitioner, the candidate whose name appeared at serial No. 55 was also appointed. Petitioner made a representation on 17.11.2004 to the Law Department of the State Government raising the grievance that he had been given hostile discrimination by the Opposite Parties. Petitioner made another representation dated 19.2.2005 that no criminal case was pending against him. It appears that the State Government and the Commission had decided to give further appointment beyond the select list in consultation with the High Court as not even half of the vacancies had been filled up. Therefore, 32 names were recommended by the Commission vide letter dated 4.4.2005 for approval of the Government. The Government approved the said 32 names on 12.4.2005 and offered them appointment on 14.9.2005. The Petitioner's representation was rejected on 22.12.2005 pointing out that the select list had expired on 27.7.2005 after one year of its coming into existence on 28.7.2004. The Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition on 24.1.2006 challenging rejection of his candidature and giving him hostile treatment. 3. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the select list prepared on 28.7.2004 expired on 27.7.2005. Undoubtedly 32 candidates whose names were recommended by the Commission were approved by the State Government 12.4.2005, but they had been appointed on 14.9.2005 after expiry of the select list. The second select list was alive for further one year i.e. up to 11.4.2006. Thus, the Petitioner was entitled for appointment. Therefore, the Petitioner had been given hostile treatment by the Opposite Parties. The Petitioner filled up all the columns furnishing information that he had never been convicted.. In fact on the date of furnishing the information three criminal cases were pending against him. But none of those cases had been decided. The question of furnishing information suo motu that criminal cases were pending against him was not required. The Petitioner stood acquitted in all the three cases vide Judgments and orders dated 10.8.2004, 12.8.2004 and 16.2.2005. Subsequent thereto there had been recommendation by the District Collector, Nayagarh certifying his character and good moral. However, the Opposite Parties did not offer him appointment. Thus, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Mr. The Petitioner stood acquitted in all the three cases vide Judgments and orders dated 10.8.2004, 12.8.2004 and 16.2.2005. Subsequent thereto there had been recommendation by the District Collector, Nayagarh certifying his character and good moral. However, the Opposite Parties did not offer him appointment. Thus, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Mr. S. Swain, Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the petition contending that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide Order Dated 22.12.2005 on the ground that the select list expired on 27.7.2005 in spite of the fact that the Petitioner had been acquitted in all the three criminal cases by different Judgments and orders of three criminal courts. The Petitioner moved this Court belatedly, i.e., on 24.1.2006, after expiry of the select list. Petitioner's name was not in the second list approved by the Government on 12.4.2005 and those successful candidates could be appointed upto 11.4.2006. An attempt was made for reconsidering the name of the Petitioner by calling a third list from the Commission but the High Court refused to agree for such a course vide its letter dated 7.12.2005 ( Annex-C/1). More so it was the solemn duty of the Petitioner to disclose that he was facing trial in three different criminal cases in three different courts an not making such a disclosure itself amounts to moral turpitude. No appointment can be made at such a belated stage particularly when the selection in pursuance of the subsequent Advertisement has also been completed and appointments had been given to more than 50 candidates in 2008. Now the Petitioner is of 39 years of age though the maximum age prescribed in the Rule is 32 years. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. So far as the question of seeking employment by mis? representation or suppression of material facts is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the issue time and again. 7. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order I office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. 7. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order I office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others. 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." 8. Similar view has been reiterated in S. Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, ; M.P. Mittal Vs. State of Haryana and Others District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, ; and State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Prabhu M. Bhaskaran v. Union of India and Ors., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, ; and Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. v. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325. 9. 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. 10. More so, if initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. "Subla 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 capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. Nor a person can claim any right arising out of his wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur). (Vide Union of India and others Vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.), ). 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 Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1650 ). 11. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others Vs. (Vide Union of India and others Vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.), ). 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 Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1650 ). 11. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar the Supreme Court examined the similar case where the appointment was refused on the post of Police Constable and the Court observed as under: It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequence. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service. 12. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, ; and A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Others the Supreme Court examined a similar case, wherein, the employment had been obtained by suppressing the material fact that criminal proceedings were pending against him at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the Form was printed in English and he did not have good knowledge of that, and therefore, could not understand as what information was sought. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the Form was printed in English and he did not have good knowledge of that, and therefore, could not understand as what information was sought. The Apex Court held that as he did not furnish the information correctly at the time of filling up the Form, the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case registered against him or the nature of offences were immaterial. "The requirement of filling column Nos. 12 and 13 of the Attestation Form" was for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the Attestation Form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuance in service for the reason that such suppression itself amounted to moral turpitude. 13. Turpitude means inherent baseness or vileness of principle or shameful wickedness or depravity. It reflects almost the same type of failing in man's character or moral make-up. However, as to whether an act amounts to moral turpitude or not depends upon on its nature and circumstances of the individual case. (vide Baleshwar Singh Vs. District Magistrate and Collector, Banaras and Others, ; Mangali Vs. Chhakki Lal and Others, ; Buddha Pitai Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer Malihabad and Others, ; Lachuram v. Inderlal, 1966 ILR Raj. 1168; and Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, ). 14. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2008 SCW 696 , the Apex Court has held that there has to be a deliberate and wilful misrepresentation and in case the applicant was not aware of his involvement in any criminal case or pendency of any criminal prosecution against him, it cannot be held that he made a misrepresentation. In the said case, the information sought was as to whether he has ever been arrested as the applicant was wanted in a criminal case and he has got a stay order from the Court. He furnished the information in negative. The Supreme Court held that it may be a case of mistaken impression but not a deliberate impression. 15. In Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy. A.P. and Others Vs. He furnished the information in negative. The Supreme Court held that it may be a case of mistaken impression but not a deliberate impression. 15. In Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy. A.P. and Others Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu the Apex Court has held that facts are to be examined in each individual case and the candidate is not supposed to furnish information not specifically asked. In a case where information sought was as to whether he had been convicted by criminal court and the candidate has answered it negative, that does not amount to misrepresentation merely because on that date a criminal case was pending against him. 16. The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Chinnam Naidu (supra). Further it is evident that the Petitioner did not suppress any material facts and he furnished information as required by the Opposite Parties. He was not required to disclose anything which he was under no obligation to do. Therefore, it was not a case where the Petitioner can be held guilty of making any misrepresentation. 17. So far as the issue of expiry of select list is concerned, the Courts have held that every appointment is to be made strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and any appointment made in contravention of the Statute becomes void. 18. It is settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate after expiry of the Select List. (Vide J. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of A.P. and Others, ; State of Bihar and others Vs. Md. Kalimuddin and others, ; State of U. P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, ; Sushma Suri Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another. It has been held that if the select list expires as per the rules applicable, as its life is over, no appointment can be made from the said list. 19. In State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sawrup Saroj the Apex Court held that in spite of the fact that the select list has expired, if the petition has been filed before the Court when the select list was alive, the Petitioner should not be deprived of his legitimate claim. 20. 19. In State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sawrup Saroj the Apex Court held that in spite of the fact that the select list has expired, if the petition has been filed before the Court when the select list was alive, the Petitioner should not be deprived of his legitimate claim. 20. In the instant case, Rule 21 (3) clearly stipulates that the select list shall remain in force for one year from the date of its approval by the Government under Sub-rule (l) thereof. However, it carves out an explanation that the Government in consultation with the High Court may decide otherwise. Therefore, the Rule clearly stipulates that ordinarily the life of the select list is one year unless the Government takes a decision otherwise in consultation with the High Court. 21. In the instant case, admittedly 32 persons had been appointed during the extended life of the select list and no fault could be found with the same. 22. We are in full agreement with the contention of Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that it is a very hard case and on equity the Court should consider the case of the Petitioner on humanitarian ground' and issue direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner in an exceptional circumstance. 23. Undoubtedly Petitioner's name was placed at Sl. No. 54 of the Provisional Merit list. However, because of the pendency of three criminal cases against him, his character was not certified by the District Administration and report had been received that he was a man of questionable character and antecedent. The State authorities have explained elaborately in the counter affidavit submitting that the said three criminal cases pending against the Petitioner were related to offence of attempt to murder, offences under the Arms Act & Explosive Act etc. Therefore, the authorities reached the conclusion that Petitioner was not a man of satisfactory character and antecedent. 24. So far as second list is concerned, it contains the names of 32 persons, but the Petitioner's name did not exist in that list and therefore he could not be offered appointment. 25. After acquittal of the Petitioner in all the three cases, State authority considered his representation and asked the District Administration to submit a fresh report, which went in favour of the Petitioner. 25. After acquittal of the Petitioner in all the three cases, State authority considered his representation and asked the District Administration to submit a fresh report, which went in favour of the Petitioner. The authorities considering the totality of the circumstances consulted the High Court for extension of life of that select list, particularly for the Petitioner. However, the High Court did not agree for further extension of life of the select list. Letter No. 9887 dated 8.12.2005 (Annex.- C/1) makes it crystal clear that the High Court refused to make recommendation for any further extension. The relevant part of the said letter reads as under: ... the Court, on careful consideration of the matter, are pleased not to recommend for any further extension of the period of validity of "Select List" of successful candidates of O.J.S. Class-II for the year 2003-2004. 26. This Writ Petition was filed subsequent to the aforesaid letter of the High Court. The Court is not competent to pass any order in contravention of law and issue a direction for acting in violation of the statutory requirement. 27. The Petitioner was born on 4.9.1969 and today he has completed more than 39 years and 3 months. The maximum age prescribed in the Rules for eligibility is 34 years. As per the advertisement relaxation of three years was permissible for the candidates belongs to SEBC, to which class Petitioner belongs. Petitioner has crossed the said limits also. More so, 57 candidates have been appointed recently vide notification dated 1st December, 2008. Therefore, it is not desirable to exercise such discretion at such a belated stage. The facts of the case in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and Another Vs. B. Sarat Chandra and Others, relied upon by Mr. Mohanty, are quite distinguishable. Thus, the ratio of the said judgment does not apply in this case. 28. The Writ Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 29. No costs. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 30. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed