Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior Assistant- cum -Typist against the post reserved for Destitute Widow in the year 1996 -1997. 2. The petitioner joined the service on 12.02.1999, by submitting the Destitute Widow certificate dated 28.7.1994. It is submitted by the petitioner, that in the application filed with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, she had disclosed all the facts regarding her financial status. 3. It was on 24.12.2001, that the petitioner was issued show cause notice to show cause, as to why her appointment be not treated as cancelled, and further to show cause as to why she be not debarred from taking further examination of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for three years. 4. The allegation against the petitioner, was that she was not a destitute widow, and had obtained the destitute certificate by concealing the material facts about her income, i.e. retiral benefits received by her from the employer of her late husband, and also monthly pension of Rs.1,750/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only). 5. The order of cancellation of appointment has been challenged by petitioner, on the ground that it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to petitioner to show cause before passing the impugned order of removal by way of cancellation of her appointment. The other ground of challenge is that the petitioner has not been disclosed reasons for cancelling her selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission opposed this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had obtained employment by playing fraud by getting destitute widow certificate by concealing the material facts. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission opposed this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had obtained employment by playing fraud by getting destitute widow certificate by concealing the material facts. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, that the petitioner had received terminal benefits from the employer of her late husband and was also drawing monthly pension of Rs.1,750/-(Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only), therefore, she could not be termed as destitute widow, in view of the instructions issued vide G.O.M.S.No.95 dated 04.11.1993, which defines the destitute widow as under: "Definition of "Destitute Widow" The term 'destitute widow is hereby defined a widow whose total monthly income from all sources is not more than Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) including any family pension or other receipts including income from private practice in the case of profession. A divorce will not, however, be treated as a "widow". 7. It is also the contention of learned counsel for respondent no.2, that the certificate furnished by petitioner to the Collector was forged certificate, therefore, the petitioner, having obtained employment by playing fraud, has no locus standi to challenge cancellation of her employment by respondent no.2, in view of the settled law, that fraud vitiates everything. 8. Though the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 is as per settled law, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this contention deserves to be noticed to be rejected. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has been constituted to hold tests and to make recommendation to the State Government for appointment. It is the State Government, which is the competent authority to appoint or dismiss an employee from service. Once the person is appointed by the Government on the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the competent authority to take any action is State Government or other authority competent under the Rules. 9. On coming to know about the irregularity, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission can only make recommendation to the State Government for taking action against the employee. It has no jurisdiction or authority to pass an order of removal of an employee, being neither appointing nor punishing authority. 10. The impugned order of cancellation of appointment of petitioner, therefore, on the face of it, is without jurisdiction, thus, not sustainable in law. It has no jurisdiction or authority to pass an order of removal of an employee, being neither appointing nor punishing authority. 10. The impugned order of cancellation of appointment of petitioner, therefore, on the face of it, is without jurisdiction, thus, not sustainable in law. 11. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued, quashing the impugned order of cancellation of her appointment. 12. However, it shall be open to the State Government to take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner, if so advised in accordance with law, by taking note of the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, pointing out fraud played by petitioner in seeking appointment. 13. No costs.