By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash his termination order, bearing No.ZEO/T/2011/199-202 dated 26.07.2011 issued by respondent no.4, with a direction to the official respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Precisely, the case of petitioner is that Primary School Chewa Ullar, Tral, was upgraded to Middle School in the year 2002. Thereafter, an advertisement notice came to be published by respondent no.4 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up three posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem (Teacher) in the upgraded Middle School, Chewa Ullar, Tral. He along with others applied and was placed in the approved select list, but was not engaged. He was, thus, constrained to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama. Meanwhile, another advertisement notice was published by respondent no.4 under No.ZEOT/SSA/04/46 dated 10.09.2004, inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers in the said School. The Village Level Committee recommended the name of petitioner with other eligible candidates and, thereafter, the petitioner was engaged vide order dated 03.02.2005. He was confirmed as a General Line Teacher by the Directorate of School Education, Kashmir, vide order dated 25.05.2010. It is contended that respondent no.4, thereafter, without hearing the petitioner, arbitrarily and without jurisdiction terminated his services vide order dated 26.07.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has challenged the said order by medium of this writ petition. 3. Respondents 2, 3, 4 & 7 have filed objections, resisting the writ petition. Respondents 1 & 5 have adopted the reply filed by respondent no.7. 4. It is stated that the petitioner was figuring at Sr. No.1, whereas respondent no.7 was figuring at Sr. No.3 in the panel. Accordingly, taking into consideration his qualification as B.Sc., the petitioner was appointed on the post in question. On verification of his B.Sc. Degree Certificate by the respondents, it was found to be fake and forged one. Further, it is contended that regularization of services of the petitioner was made on the basis of said certificate. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the ingenuineness of said certificate would have been brought to the notice of official respondents before making selection or regularization, the petitioner would have neither been appointed nor regularized on the post. The said fraud was unearthed only after the order of regularization was made in favour of petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the ingenuineness of said certificate would have been brought to the notice of official respondents before making selection or regularization, the petitioner would have neither been appointed nor regularized on the post. The said fraud was unearthed only after the order of regularization was made in favour of petitioner. However, it is submitted that the order of regularization has not been given effect to, because of pendency of verification of his testimonials. Further, it is submitted that his salary, too, has not been drawn in the regularized pay. The petitioner managed his selection on the basis of fake Degree Certificate of B.Sc. But, as a matter of fact, he was only possessing 10+2 qualification with 285 marks out of 600 marks. In the selection the fake certificate gave an edge to the petitioner over others, particularly respondent no.7. Therefore, it is contended that he was rightly shown the door. It is contended that the appointment of petitioner is void-ab-initio and bad in law, so he cannot claim any right of being heard. 5. Further, it is contended that the petitioner not only produced the fake Degree Certificate, but he also managed to obtain favourable verification report by playing fraud. The University of Kashmir through its Assistant Controller, Tabulation, vide communication dated 09.07.2011 submitted a report in which it was recorded that no such verification report was submitted by the University of Kashmir. It would be appropriate to quote hereunder the relevant portion of said communication. “Kindly refer to your letter dated 16.06.2011 regarding the subject cited above. In this connection it is to inform you that the particulars recorded in the marks certificate received from your office do not exist in the result records maintained by the office of the undersigned. However, the Xerox copy of the verification letter No.F(Result-Veri)KU/Tab/06 dated 31.05.2006 furnished by the candidate is fabricated one and has not been issued by this office. Further action in the matter may please be taken under rules accordingly.” 6. It is thus established that the petitioner had succeeded in hoodwinking the authorities of the Department, in that he had sought his appointment on a fake certificate. 7. Further action in the matter may please be taken under rules accordingly.” 6. It is thus established that the petitioner had succeeded in hoodwinking the authorities of the Department, in that he had sought his appointment on a fake certificate. 7. Learned counsel for writ petitioner argued that without conducting an inquiry, termination order of petitioner came to be issued which is in violation of principles of natural justice, as petitioner came to be condemned unheard. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for official respondents argued that writ petitioner had managed fake and forged B.Sc. Degree Certificate and got himself appointed by fraudulent means. Not only did he deceive the official respondents, but also the public in general. Further, it is stated that the petitioner, in order to maintain his status, also presented the false report of Kashmir University, which is substantiated by the report of Assistant Controller Tabulation, University of Kashmir. Thus, he was not to be heard at all before making the order. 9. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, petitioner has specifically averred that at the time he applied for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem, he had qualified B.Sc. Part-II examination. Thus, according to his own admission, the petitioner was not having B.Sc. qualification at his back when he applied for the post in question. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 3 hereunder. “3) That the petitioner who had passed B.Sc Part IId examination also applied for the said post. His name was approved and brought on select panel by the Village Level Committee on the basis of his merit. The list issued in this behalf by the ZEO concerned shows petitioner’s name at S.No2 while as one Gh. Mohidin Reshi S/o Mohd. Subhan Reshi at S.No. 1.” 10. Regularization order (annexure “D” to the writ petition) of the petitioner discloses that he came to be selected on the basis of his having B.Sc. qualification. Same is the reply of official respondents 2, 3 & 4. They have specifically averred that the case of petitioner was pending for regularization when it was found that he had produced fake degree of B.Sc. He was given ample opportunity to explain his position, which he failed to do. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the reply of official respondents hereunder. “6. Para 8 is denied as not correct. He was given ample opportunity to explain his position, which he failed to do. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the reply of official respondents hereunder. “6. Para 8 is denied as not correct. In this connection, it is submitted that petitioner after completing five years of the services without bothering for his fraudulent entry in the department sought regularization of his services. The concerned VEC and the department on the production of requisite qualification certificate prescribed for the purpose, regularized the services of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 as Graduate, conditionally subject to the fulfillment of conditions as laid down in the DSEK order No. 1077 DSEK of 2010 dated 24.05.2010 with regard to the verification of all testimonials as one of the pre-condition. However, the order of regularization was endorsed by the Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No.4 in December, 2010. Further, the petitioner’s false statement that he has been engaged on the basis of 10+2 qualification is a benevolent lie and for which he has got no merit as compared to other candidates in row. The petitioner on 10.10.2009 applied for his verification roll giving full particulars about his address and qualification at para 10 of the form with qualification of B.Sc. that too acquired at SP College during 1995 to 1999, thereby again hided his actual qualification instead of showing fake qualification of graduation, which depicts his malafide intentions in this regard. 7. In reply to paras 9 to 10, it is submitted that the petitioner was not given effect of his regularization in absence of verification of his testimonials and no pay has been released in his favour in the regularized pay scale and the order was held till specific verification form the concerned authorities was sought by the respondent no.4. 8. That a complaint was also received by the office of respondent no.4 during the course of verification of his testimonials, wherein it was stated that the petitioner has found his entry in the department on the submission of fake qualification certificate, as otherwise, the said petitioner was holding lower merit in 10+2 with 285/600 marks (the basic qualification for entry as ReT under SSA norms). The petitioner has thus deceived the department and is punishable under law of the state. 9. The petitioner has thus deceived the department and is punishable under law of the state. 9. The petitioner has been given ample chances to explain his positive vide the office Nos. ZEO/T/2011/1798 dated 16.5.2011 and ZEO/T/2011/1920 dated 16.6.2011, and the same served to him under his full signatures on the office copy, but the petitioner failed to reply. The whole case history was communicated to the respondent no. 2 vide the office No. ZEO/T/2011/33 dated 16.6.2011, the Xerox copy of the petitioner submitted B.Sc marks certificate was furnished to University of Kashmir authorities for favouring genuineness of the qualification certificate. The University of Kashmir vide No. F (Result-Verif) Tab/KU/11 dated 17.06.2011 directed to furnish the requisite verification fee of Rs.300/- and submission of original B.Sc. Marks Certificate, which was relied upon. 10. The verification reporting in respect of the B.Sc Marks certificate of the petitioner furnished thereon by the University of Kashmir under No. F(Result-Veri) Tab/KU/11 dated 09.07.2011 which read: “The particulars recorded in the marks certificate received from your office do not exist in the result records maintained by the office of the undersigned. However, the Xerox copy of the verification letter No. F (Result-Veri) KU/Tab/06 dated 31.05.2006 furnished by the candidate is fabricated one and has not been issued by this office. Further action in the matter may please be taken under rules accordingly.” 11. Now the question for consideration is: whether a person, who makes entry into the public service by illegal means or on the basis of fake documents, is entitled to be heard before passing any adverse order? In the given circumstances, the reply has to be negative. 12. The Apex Court in the case R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1469 , held that when an appointment is made on fake and frivolous documents, the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise at all, and the wrong doer/delinquent can be shown the exit door without conducting inquiry. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 15 & 19 of the judgment (supra) hereunder. “15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. “15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all. 19. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all. 19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionery benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission, as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eyes of law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.” 13. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.” 13. This Court also, in the case Mubarak Ahmad Bhat vs State & ors., 2011 (2) JKJ 586 (HC), has held that principles of natural justice demand that right of hearing is to be given to such a person who has acquired some right genuinely and not otherwise. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 4 & 5 of the judgment (supra) hereunder. “4. The respondents after noticing the said fraud have drawn action, lodged FIR against the petitioner and rightly issued the impugned order. Any person making entry in the Govt. department de hors of rules; by fraud has no claim to seek consideration. My this view is fortified by a judgment passed by this court in case titled Mohammad Maqbool Wagay v. State of J&K & others, 2007 (3) JKJ HC-167: SLJ 2007, 351. 5. The principles of natural justice demand that even right of hearing is to be given to such a person who legally has acquired some right or a person who genuinely came to be appointed or engaged and not to the person who adopts illegal means to accomplish his desire of making entry in the public service. A Government employee is an essential component of the machinery that helps to keep the public order in tact and in lieu thereof gets paid the salary as per his ability. The right of wages, is a precious right, and is available only to such persons, who make their entry into Govt. service by legal means. At a time when unemployment is a global challenge in general and in our State in particular; educated but unemployed youth are dying to get a chance to serve the public machinery; when courts are burdened with heavy litigation on this count; when even the street vending has fallen in the hands of educated persons; the people like petitioner cannot be allowed to drain out such a valuable and highly sought after treasure.” 14. It is not the case of petitioner that he was having B.Sc. qualification at his credit. In terms of the advertisement notice, qualification of 10+2 or higher qualification was to be taken into consideration as per rules. It is not the case of petitioner that he was having B.Sc. qualification at his credit. In terms of the advertisement notice, qualification of 10+2 or higher qualification was to be taken into consideration as per rules. After 10+2, the next higher qualification is graduation and not B.Sc. Part-I or Part-II. Thus, on his own showing, the petitioner was not having the qualification of B.Sc. at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the question of giving hearing to him does not arise. Consequently, there has been no breach of any law, muchless the principles of natural justice. 15. Viewed thus, the writ petition merits to be dismissed. Dismissed as such along with all CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.