I A. Ansari, J.— 1. The directions given by the judgment and order, dated 11.11.2005 in Civil Rule No. 385 of 1995, are under challenge in the present appeal. 2. The material facts, giving rise to the main issues, were not in dispute in the writ petition and it is mainly the directions, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, while disposing of the writ petition, which form the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. We, therefore, reproduce hereinbelow the directions, which were given by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition : "10. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The respondents, particularly, the respondent No. 3 shall promote the petitioner to the post of UDC against roster point No. 4 reserved for Scheduled Caste with effect from 18.5.1987 with nil consequential benefit's except actual monetary benefit. (ii) The Scheduled Tribe incumbent who filled up the said post by exchange method shall be pushed back to roster-point No. 9 for accommodating the petitioner at roster point No. 4 as indicated above. (iii) The respondent No. 3 shall thereafter consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Clerk with effect from 7.3.1988 against size post reserved for Scheduled Caste at roster point No. 4 or with effect from the date he completed 5 years of service counting from 18.6.1987 against roster point No. 9. (iv) Such promotion shall be made with all consequential benefit except actual monetary benefits. (v) Any dislocation in the service of other incumbent(s) resulting from such exercise may be resolved by creating supernumerary post(s), if necessary. (vi) The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The parties are directed to bear their own costs." 3. The respondent No. 1 herein, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, being a member of the Scheduled Caste, received appointment as Lower Division Clerk ('LDC') in the Directorate of Panchayat, Government of Tripura, on 6.7.1979, and joined the post, on 16.7.1979, accordingly. The parties are directed to bear their own costs." 3. The respondent No. 1 herein, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, being a member of the Scheduled Caste, received appointment as Lower Division Clerk ('LDC') in the Directorate of Panchayat, Government of Tripura, on 6.7.1979, and joined the post, on 16.7.1979, accordingly. In terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules, LDC forms the feeder cadre for the promotional post of Upper Division Clerk CUDC'), the minimum qualifying service for promotion to the post of UDC being five years in the Grade of LDC and the post is a non-selection post. The writ petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of UDC on 16.7.1984. Apost of UDC fell vacant in the Directorate of Panchayat, Government Tripura, on 18.5.1987. On the date, on which the vacancy so arose, the writ petitioner was the senior-most Scheduled Caste candidate/eligible for promotion to the post of UDC, and, in the ordinary course, he would have been promoted, as a member of the Scheduled Caste community, to the vacant post of UDC against Point No. 4 of the 100 Point Roster of Reservation maintained by the establishment concerned; but, due to the fact that one Smt. Uma Choudhury, LDC, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was senior to the writ petitioner/the writ petitioner's case was not considered for promotion. The Departmental Promotional Committee ('DPC'), which held its meeting, on 19.7.1990, took into consideration the proceedings of DPC meetings held earlier on 18.5.1987 and 26.11.1987. What stood recorded in the DPC meetings was that there was one vacant post of UDC reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate against point No. 4 of the 100 point roster, but, Smt. Uma Choudhury's case for promotion could not be recommended, because a challenge to her status, as a member of the Scheduled Caste, was pending for determination. 4. Situated, thus, it was recommended by the DPC (as the proceedings, dated 19.7.1990, of the DPC reveals) that the case for promotion of Smt. Uma Choudhury should be kept in abeyance till the enquiry, which was pending, was completed and a final decision in that regard was arrived at. 4. Situated, thus, it was recommended by the DPC (as the proceedings, dated 19.7.1990, of the DPC reveals) that the case for promotion of Smt. Uma Choudhury should be kept in abeyance till the enquiry, which was pending, was completed and a final decision in that regard was arrived at. The proceedings, dated 19.7.1990, of the DPC reveal that the DPC further observed that since there was no Scheduled Caste candidate available to fill up the post of UDC at point No. 4 of the 100 point roster, the eligible candidate from Scheduled Tribe, i.e., Sri Surendra Debbarma (respondent No. 7 in the writ petition) be promoted to the post of UDC as against point No. 4 and/in consequence thereof, the point No. 9, which, otherwise, stood reserved for candidate of Scheduled Tribe, would be filled up by Scheduled Caste candidate. Sri Surendra Debbarma was accordingly -promoted and the post of the UDC, which stood, otherwise, reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, came to be filled up. Later on, by Memorandum, dated 21.7.1993, issued by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, West Tripura, the Scheduled Caste certificate, dated 21.5.1976, issued to Smt. Uma Choudhury, as a member of Scheduled Caste, was cancelled on the ground that the certificate had, been obtained by misrepresentation of facts. However, after almost seven years later, an order was formally made, on 7.3.2001, by the Directorate of Panchayat, Government, of Tripura, stripping Smt. Uma Choudhury of her status as a member of Scheduled Caste but she was allowed to remain in service as LDC. 5. However, after almost seven years later, an order was formally made, on 7.3.2001, by the Directorate of Panchayat, Government, of Tripura, stripping Smt. Uma Choudhury of her status as a member of Scheduled Caste but she was allowed to remain in service as LDC. 5. Thereafter, a writ petition, which gave rise to Civil Rule No. 3857 1995, was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein seeking directions to the State-respondents, (i.e., the appellants herein), inter alia, to promote him as UDC against point No. 4, which, originally stood reserved for candidate of Scheduled Caste, his case being that as Uma Choudhury's appointment as Scheduled Caste candidate stood vitiated by her playing fraud, her appointment as LDC ought to have been treated as non est in law, she could not have been considered for promotion to the reserved post of UDC and, when she could not have been promoted to the said reserved post, the writ petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion to the said post with effect from 18.5.1987 and that the DPC had considered Smt. Uma Choudhury's case for promotion to the post of UDC, but kept the question of her promotion pending, because of the fact that her status as a Scheduled Caste was in dispute and pending for determination. By the judgment and order, under appeal, the learned Single Judge has accepted the plea of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 and it is essentially the correctness of this finding, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional GA, Tripura, and Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner-respondent No. 1. None has appeared on behalf of the remaining respondents, including Sri Surendra Debbarma, who stands impleaded in the present appeal as respondent No. 3. 7. Before proceeding further, it needs to be pointed out that aggrieved by the direction given by the impugned judgment and order that Sri Surendra Debbarma shall be removed from the roster point No. 4, which he had occupied, by way of exchange method, as mentioned above, and be adjusted against roster point No. 9, Sri Surendra Debbarma had preferred an appeal being No. WA No. 58 of 2005. The appeal was dismissed for default on 15.7.2010. The personal grievances, if any, of Sri Surendra Debbarma do not, therefore, survive any longer. 8. The appeal was dismissed for default on 15.7.2010. The personal grievances, if any, of Sri Surendra Debbarma do not, therefore, survive any longer. 8. Coupled with the above, what needs to be also noted is that though Smt. Uma Choudhury's original appointment as UDC has been maintained by the State respondents, the fact of the matter remains that she had obtained her appointment by playing fraud inasmuch as she had projected herself as a member of the Scheduled Caste, though she was not a member of the Scheduled Caste, and the appellants could have, therefore, cancelled her appointment itself. Her appointment, for all intents and purposes, ought to be treated as non est on 18.5.1987, when the post of UDC, meant for a member of the Scheduled Caste, in terms of roster point No. 4, had fallen vacant. Her appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law and she ought not to have been treated existing, as a Scheduled Caste candidate, senior to the petitioner-respondent No. 1. Once fraud played by her came to light and the caste certificate, issued to her, stood cancelled, the cancellation of her Caste Certificate ought to have been treated as having related back to the date, when the Caste Certificate was issued. In effect, the Caste Certificate, which had been issued to Smt. Uma Choudhury, ought to be treated to have never existed in the eyes of law. Smt. Uma Choudhury ought not to have, therefore, if we may reiterate, treated as existing as an'LDC senior to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 and, had her status, as Scheduled Caste candidate, been treated as non est, there would have been no impediment in the petitioner being considered for promotion against roster point No. 4, when the vacancy had arisen. With this development, appointment of Sri Surendra Debbarma could not have been maintained against roster point No. 4 and he ought to have been placed against roster point No. 9 with effect from the date, when roster point No. 9, became available to accommodate him. This position cannot be disputed. 9. With this development, appointment of Sri Surendra Debbarma could not have been maintained against roster point No. 4 and he ought to have been placed against roster point No. 9 with effect from the date, when roster point No. 9, became available to accommodate him. This position cannot be disputed. 9. In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 105 , the Supreme Court has held that when a person received appointment by projecting to belong to a reserved category, though he did not belong to any reserved category, his appointment cannot survive inasmuch as the very basis of his appointment would stand taken away the moment his caste certificate is cancelled and that the appointment of such a person, who obtains the appointment by playing fraud, shall be treated to be void and non est in the eye of the law. Such a person, in the light of the decision in R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra), does not have the right to even receive pension and no sympathy and/or equitable consideration can come to the rescue of such a person. The same view has been expressed in Bank of India and Another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 690 , wherein the Supreme Court observed that when the clear rinding of the scrutiny committee was that the employee did not belong to any Scheduled Tribe, though he had obtained appointment as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, the very foundation of his appointment collapses and his appointment would be no appointment in the eye of the law and he would have no justification to claim the post, which he had occupied, because the post was meant for a reserved candidate. 10. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel, refers to the decision in Superintendent of Post Offices and Others v. R. Valasina Babu, (2007) 2 SCC 335 , wherein it has been held that when a vacancy is to be filled up by a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate, but the candidate appointed does not belong to such a category, his appointment shall be treated as non est in the eye of the law. Mr. Mr. Deb, learned counsel, has also referred to the decision, in Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Others, (2008) 13 SCC 170 , wherein the court was required to consider two questions, mainly (i) whether delay in making reference to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificate as also the delay on the part of the Scrutiny Committee in such verification per se vitiates the order of termination of services of an employee, even when the certificate is, ultimately, found to be false, and (ii) whether, because of the employee having rendered services to the employer for over twenty years, it would be equitable to cancel her appointment, when, admittedly, in the first instance, the employee was not eligible for such appointment? The court concluded, in Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (supra), that a person, who enters into service by producing a false caste certificate and obtains appointment to the post meant for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC candidate, as the case may be, deprives, in effect, a genuine candidate falling in either of the said categories of appointment to that post and does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence from the court and that such an act of falsity and deception is nothing but fraud, which vitiates the appointment itself. 11. In the case at hand, therefore, on having concluded that Smt. Uma Choudhury did not belong to Scheduled Caste and her caste certificate was cancelled on 21.7.1993, her very appointment to the post of LDC became illegal and ought to have been treated, for the purposes of considering the case of the petitioner-respondent No. 1, as non est in the eye of law. The petitioner-respondent No. 1, having become eligible for promotion on 16.7.1984 and the post of UDC having become available for promotion, on 18.5.1987, for a candidate of Scheduled Caste, the petitioner-respondent No. 1 ought to have been treated, and has rightly been treated by the learned Single Judge, as the senior most LDC amongst the Scheduled Caste candidates on 18.5.1987 and he ought to have, therefore, been considered for promotion against roster point No. 4 and Sri Surendra Debbarma ought not to have remained promoted to the post of UDC, against roster point No. 4. In fact, when the caste certificate of Smt. Uma Choudhury was cancelled, the present appellants, ought to have taken corrective steps of considering the case of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 against roster point No. 4 by removing Sri Surendra Debbarma therefrom and by pushing Sri Surendra Debbarma to the roster point No. 9 and taking the petitioner-respondent No. 1, as UDC, to the roster point No. 4. As this had not been done and the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was illegally denied consideration of promotion to the post of UDC with reference to 18.5.1987, (i.e., the date on which vacancy in the post of UDC meant for Scheduled Caste had arisen), the learned Single Judge committed no error in directing the State appellants to promote, with consequential monetary benefits, the petitioner-respondent No. 1 to the post of UDC against roster point No. 4, with effect from 18.5.1987, because the vacancy at the roster point No. 4 became available after the petitioner-respondent No. 1 had already become eligible for promotion to the said post of UDC. 12. The learned Single Judge also correctly directed that Sri Surendra Debbarma be pushed to the roster point No. 9 inasmuch as the petitioner-respondent No. 1 ought to be promoted, with effect from 18.5.1987, to the post UDC against roster point No. 4, which was meant for Schedule Caste candidate; more so, when the challenge, posed to the directions given by the learned Single Judge against Sri Surendra Debbarma has, as already indicated above, failed. 13. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, in our considered view, wholly frivolous and wastage of public time. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000. 14. Before parting with this appeal, we place on record that we have been informed by the learned counsel for the parties, appearing before us, that the petitioner-respondent No.1 has already retired. Looking into this aspect of the matter, we order the appellants to fully comply with the directions given by the judgment and order, dated 18.7.2011, within a period of three months from today. _____________