M.M. Kumar, C.J. 1. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled position of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree " by the first Court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings". This,is the opening para of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and ors, (1994)1 SCC 1 . In the same manner the Supreme Court considered various other authorities in para nos. 10 to 25 in the case of Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala and anr, (2006) 7 SCC 416. The Supreme Court followed its view in case of Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550 . 2. We have prefaced this judgment with the aforesaid propositions of law as settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court for the reason that this appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent reveals a sordid saga of fraud committed by the appellant. She has applied for appointment on the post of Female Multipurpose Health Worker (for brevity "FMPHW"). The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the communication dated 27.04.2011 which revealed that the Permanent Resident Certificate (for brevity "PRC") issued in her favour was forged and fabricated. However, there was another report which favoured the appellant. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the Divisional Commissioner to hold an enquiry into the issuance of PRC to respondent no.5 through some senior officer of his department. The officer entrusted with the duty of conducting enquiry was required to afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as Shashita Rehman, who was petitioner no.2 in the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal. The officer was also to consider the documents/material which may be placed before him and a period of four weeks was fixed. The officer entrusted with the duty of conducting enquiry was required to afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as Shashita Rehman, who was petitioner no.2 in the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal. The officer was also to consider the documents/material which may be placed before him and a period of four weeks was fixed. As an interim measure the learned Single Judge allowed the selection of the appellant on the post of FMPHW in Medical Block Qaimoh under NRHM scheme which was to remain subject to the outcome of the enquiry. Her selection/engagement was to be cancelled in the event it was found by the enquiry officer that the PRC belonging to her was a forged document. The appellant has to re-pay the salary, if any, she has received in pursuance to her selection/engagement on the aforesaid post. After cancellation of her appointment the case of respondent no.6, Shashita Rehman was to be considered for appointment on the post of FMPHW. The enquiry was to be independent of the police investigation which was in progress in pursuance of registration of a criminal case against the appellant. The entire exercise was to be completed within a period of six weeks and for the aforesaid period of six weeks status quo in respect of services of the appellant was to be made. 3. In pursuance of the direction issued the Divisional Commissioner entrusted the holding of enquiry to the Deputy Commissioner Anantnag. Accordingly an enquiry has been held and it has been found that she is not resident of village Locktipora and the PRC in question had been acquired in a fake and forged manner without following the proper procedure stipulated on the subject. It would be appropriate to set out the proceedings of enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner in ex tenso, which reads as under:- "1. During the enquiry conducted earlier, the report of Patwari concerned reveals that necessary revenue extracts have not been issued by him in favour of respondent no. 5 at any stay during the process of case file for issuance of PRC. 2. The reports of Tehsildars have also been perused, wherein the Tehsildar who was Incharge of the Tehsil at the time of conducting of enquiry, has reported that the case file with respect to the PRC is not traceable. 5 at any stay during the process of case file for issuance of PRC. 2. The reports of Tehsildars have also been perused, wherein the Tehsildar who was Incharge of the Tehsil at the time of conducting of enquiry, has reported that the case file with respect to the PRC is not traceable. However, merely on the basis of entry made in the dispatch register has reported that the PRC has been issued from the Tehsil Office Bijbehara. 't is worth to mention that the Tehsildar, whose signatures seem to be appended on the disputed PRC has categorically, denied that the instant PRC has been processed during his stay as Tehsildar, Bijbehara, and has further stated that the signatures appended on the said PRC are forged. 3. The report of the Tehsildar Pahalgam, as "Enquiry Officer" in the matter, submitted vide his No. 761/OQ dated 11.4.2011 reveals that the respondent no. 5 and her husband do not exist in the voter list of village Locktipora., where they were supposed to be enlisted as voters in case of a Khana -Nisheen marital status. 4. The signatures of issuing authority i.e. Addl. Distt. Development Commissioner, Anantnag does not seem corroborating with the specimen signatures available on the other records of this office and moreover, the seal affixed on the said PRC is of Addl. Dy. Commissioner Anantnag, the post which the issuing authority has never occupied in the District. 5. The original PRC file with respect to issuance of PRC, could not be traced out and the case has already been referred to police station Bijbehara vide this officer letter no. 23-25/DCA/Lit/11 dated 27.04.2011 against the delinquent official. 6. The respondent no. 5 was asked to produce original PRC, which she could not, stating that the same was lost during her travel from Anantnag to Kulgam and a press cutting has been produced before the undersigned. However, the date of the press cutting is quite late i.e. 21.04.2011 i.e. after the publication of advertisement-notice. 7. The voter lists of village Locktipora, where the respondent no. 5 claims permanent residence does not depict, neither her name nor the name of her husband, while as the names have been incorporated by way of addition as voters through Form 6 in the year 2012. 8. The Nikah Nama of the respondent no. 5 shows the marriage contract as "Khana-Nisheen." 9. 5 claims permanent residence does not depict, neither her name nor the name of her husband, while as the names have been incorporated by way of addition as voters through Form 6 in the year 2012. 8. The Nikah Nama of the respondent no. 5 shows the marriage contract as "Khana-Nisheen." 9. The statements of Lamberdar, Chowkidar of the area reveal that the marriage of the respondent no. 5 has been ceremonized as "Khana Beroun". However, lately the couple is putting up at village Locktipora for unknown reasons. In these circumstances, the case terminates into following controversies: a) Whether or not the PRC has been issued in a bonafied manner and under proper seal and signatures of the authorities. b) Whether or not the respondent no. 5 and her husband are permanent residents of village Locktipora instead of village Trubji. c) Whether or not the marriage, the basis for conferring entitlement as resident of village Locktipora is a "khana Nisheen" marriage or "Khana Beroun". Now, therefore, after conducting the enquiry and giving thoughtful consideration to the material facts produced before the undersigned and considering the circumstantial evidences, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the respondent no. 5 as resident of village Locktipora is not substantiated and the PRC in question has been acquired in a fake and forged manner without following the proper procedure stipulated on the subject." (Emphasis added) 4. A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that the appellant (referred to as respondent no.5 in the enquiry proceedings) failed to produce the original PRC' nor the original PRC file could be traced out. The matter has already been referred to Police Station Bijbehara. The contents of para 1 would reveal that the revenue extracts have not been issued by the Patwari in favour of the appellant at any stage. The Tehsildar, whose signatures seems to be appended on the PRC, has denied that he has ever signed the PRC or that the PRC in question was processed during his stay as Tehsildar Bijbehara. It has been concluded that the signatures were apparently forged. The name of the appellant along with her husband does not exist in the voter list. The signature of the issuing authority i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner did not corroborate with the specimen signatures available on the other records available with the office. It has been concluded that the signatures were apparently forged. The name of the appellant along with her husband does not exist in the voter list. The signature of the issuing authority i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner did not corroborate with the specimen signatures available on the other records available with the office. This does not leave good taste in mouth. 5. The appellant has apparently indulged in unsavoury conduct of producing documents which have not been found genuine, therefore, her selection or engagement, if any, stand vitiated as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (supra). She has to even refund the amount of salary if she has received any from the respondents on account of her engagement as FMPHW. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000/-.