JUDGMENT In view of up-gradation of Primary School, Tangbal to the status of Middle School, two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers under Sarva Shiksha Abiyan, are shown to have been created. Appli­cations from eligible candidates have been invited vide advertisement notice dated 27.2.2009 for selecting two can­didates, one with Math and another with Science background. The peti­tioner and respondent No. 5 had applied as against the post with Science back­ground. The petitioner was shown to have secured 291 marks in 10+2 whereas respondent No. 5 was shown to have secured 285 marks so figured at serial No. 2. The petitioner on aforesaid basis, being superior in merit, was ap­pointed vide order dated 01.09.2009. 2. The respondent No. 5 seem to have sought information under Right to In- formation Act about position of qualifi­cation of the petitioner. It surfaced that the petitioner in fact had secured 257 marks in her 10+2. Noticing the same position, petitioner filed SWP No. 438/ 2012 and vide order dated 09.03.2012, passed in the said writ petition, present status of the petitioner was directed to be maintained and all legally earned wages were directed to be paid to her in accordance with rules. 3. Before the aforesaid order dated 09.03.2012 could be served upon the respondent No. 4(Zonal Education Of­ficer), the said respondent had passed a detailed order dated 10.03.2012 wherein all the circumstances have been noticed and it has been concluded that the petitioner has managed her entry by indulging in criminal act as she had produced Photostat copy of 10+2 marks card showing to have obtained 291 marks when on verification from J&K Board of School Education, Srinagar, it is clearly shown that she had passed 10+2 examination under Roll No. 179541 session 2001 (annual) and had secured only 257 marks. It has further been concluded that the peti­tioner has deceived the department and by deception, at the cost of respondent No. 5, has secured the appointment or­der by producing forged and fraud marks card. Finally the petitioner has been ordered to be disengaged from service as ReT with immediate effect. 4. As against the order dated 10.03.2012, passed by respondent No. 4, instant writ petition has been filed. 5. Finally the petitioner has been ordered to be disengaged from service as ReT with immediate effect. 4. As against the order dated 10.03.2012, passed by respondent No. 4, instant writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked as to what was the marks position of the petitioner in 10+2, he in all fairness submitted that the petitioner had secured only 257 marks and the petitioner had produced the same certificate wherein 257 marks were shown to have been se­cured by the petitioner but it is the re­spondent department who has engaged the petitioner in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner donated 7 (seven) Marias of land for construction of school building, further added that by now petitioner has been working from the year 2009, it would be too harsh for her to be disengaged. In sup­port of this contention, learned coun­sel placed reliance on the judgment captioned Partap Singh v. State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3385 . 6. With respect, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the reported judgment writ petition was filed 16 years after appointment. The appointee had been appointed in the year 1981 and had got two promotions; the appointment was challenged by a person who had not con­tested for the appointment. In view of that position, the position of the appoin­tee, in the reported case, was not dis­turbed. In the present case the posi­tion is altogether different. Fraud has been played, such fraud cannot be per­mitted to operate against the interests of respondent No. 5 who had contested and figured at serial No. 2 in the order of merit when in fact she should have figured at serial No. 1 but for the fraud. 7. Learned counsel for the respon­dents in one voice stated that the pro­cess of selection was purely in accor­dance with merit, posts were adver­tised, petitioner had deceived the department and by deception has secured appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the respon­dents in one voice stated that the pro­cess of selection was purely in accor­dance with merit, posts were adver­tised, petitioner had deceived the department and by deception has secured appointment. So far as donation of land is concerned, that was offered by the father of the petitioner unconditionally which fact is supported by the applica­tion, as is placed by the petitioner on the records, wherein father of the pe­titioner has stated that without any compensation, he has agreed to offer 7(seven) Marias of land for construction of school building and his said gesture was appreciated. The selection process had nothing to do with the land as is stated to have been offered by the fa­ther of the petitioner. 8. While considering the rival sub­missions, what would emerge is that the appointment of petitioner is out­come of fraud which she appear to have played by producing forged marks cer­tificate wherein instead of 257 marks, 291 are shown to have been secured by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to project that in the earlier filed writ petition order of status quo was passed on 09.03.2012 and in breach thereof, order dated 10.03.2012 has been passed but it is clear that the or­der has been granted on 09.03.2012 which had not reached to respondent No. 4 when said respondent passed or­der on 10.03.2012. The earlier filed writ petition stands dismissed as rendered infructuous, as is recorded in order dated 05.06.2012. 10. When fraud has been played, may be with connivance or not, petitioner cannot be permitted to enjoy her posi­tion of being a ReT on the basis of such fraud. No doubt, she has been working from the year 2009 but that does not mean that her alleged fraudulent act has to be regularized, that too at the cost and sufferance of respondent No. 5. The order passed by the respondent No. 4 dated 10.03.2012 is perfectly in consonance with law and justice, same does not call for any interference. The official respondents shall take imme­diate steps for engagement of respon­dent No. 5 as ReT in place of the peti­tioner, as has been recommended by respondent No. 4, because at the rel­evant time she was a meritorious can­didate but got excluded in view of the alleged fraud played by the petitioner. 11. This petition, being without any merit, is dismissed along with con­nected CMP.