JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the 119 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as "C.R.P.F.") on 7.2.1996 against a vacancy which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Later, it transpired that petitioner is Dusadh and not a Scheduled Tribe could not have been appointed on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Departmental proceeding was initiated and by the impugned order dated 7th March,2008, Annexure-1 petitioner has been dismissed from service. His appeal and revision against the said order has failed and by filing the writ petition petitioner is challenging the dismissal order dated 7th March, 2008, Annexure-1, appellate, revisional orders dated 12.7.2008, 3.7.2009, Annexures-3 and 5. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Cook on 7.2.1996 and at the time of initial appointment itself the authorities were required to have verified the correctness or otherwise of the caste certificate which was produced at the time of appointment and became the basis of appointment. Petitioner having continued in service for more than 11 years the dismissal order be set aside on the grounds of equity and he be reinstated in service. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner may not be a Tribe but is a Scheduled Caste, a reserved category and by interchanging the post with a Tribe he may be allowed to continue in service. In support of such submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Madhusudan V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 767 to submit that the authorities having accepted his social status at the time of appointment and the appointment having taken place a decade ago the authorities should aceept the appointment as fait accompli and could not be allowed to reopen the matter after about nine years of service rendered by the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the prayer. He states that the petition itself is not maintainable as the dismissal order has been passed at Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. 4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the prayer. He states that the petition itself is not maintainable as the dismissal order has been passed at Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. I regret not to accept such submission as having been dismissed from service petitioner filed his appeal and the appellate order was communicated to him at his village home in Bihar whereafter he filed his revision application and the revisional order was also served on the petitioner at his village home in Bihar. In the circumstances, the dismissal order having merged in the appellate and revisional order, this Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. 5. Counsel for the Union of India next submitted that from the findings recorded in the impugned dismissal order itself it would appear that the certificate dated 5.11.1994 which was produced by the petitioner at the time of his appointment was found to be a forged certificate and as petitioner has taken appointment on the basis of a document which was forged he is not entitled to any relief under the equity jurisdiction of this Court. In support of such submission learned counsel for the Union has relied on the judgment of. the Honble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai V/s. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2004)2 Supreme Court Cases 105, whereunder the Honble Supreme Court ruled that a person procuring appointment on a post meant for the reserved category on the basis of a false certificate is not a person holding a civil post and such appointment is no appointment in the eye of law and could be reopened at any stage and in the said case illegal appointment was set aside after 27 years of entry in service. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India and having perused the impugned dismissal order it is evident that petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the C.R.P.F. on a post which was meant for Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a certificate dated 5.11.1994 issued by the Block Development Officer, Barh which was later on found to be forged and in appreciation of the fact that petitioner had obtained appointment on the oasis of forged caste certificate he was dismissed from service after conclusion of the departmental proceeding. As the appointment on the basis of forged certificate is no appointment in the eye of law, it can be terminated even after 11 years. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the dismissal, appellate and the revisional order and the writ petition is dismissed.