JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There is no mechanism by which the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will give its judicial opinion on the delinquent and fraudulent conduct in an adjudication which has been made by quasi judicial authority, who was the erstwhile Member of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority. When the details of his wrong doing tumbled out an enquiry was made and even an FIR has been lodged against the Member and other office staff of the said appellate authority which would be evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed today. 3. The petitioner is a beneficiary of fraudulent decision which in the opinion of the Court the petitioner cannot draw advantage of. The so-called objection that what was done by the S.D.O. on the adjudications made by the appellate authority is beyond his powers is also a misplaced stand as Annexure-4 is only a recommendation in the emerging facts. 4. The Court is in agreement with the stand taken by the State that the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer was only a report on enquiry having been made extensively with regard to large number of such orders from which benefit was derived by the candidates illegally. Based on findings thereof the subsequent decisions for stoppage of salary and may be removal in some cases has been passed by the competent authority. There is nothing to show that the Sub-Divisional Officer has issued the concerned order. It is only his recommendation and the law does (sic not?)bar making such an enquiry in such a situation to put the administration of justice even by a quasi judicial authority clean and above board. 5. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. 6. A direction is hereby issued to the District Magistrate, Aurangabad that he shall personally look into the matter and take the issue to its logical end on all fronts including the criminal case lodged against the member of appellate authority.