JUDGMENT 1. 1. Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant i.e., fraud and justice never dwell together is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. The facts and circumstances which are relevant and germane to all these petitions in general and the eventual adjudication on the lis involved in the matter has direct proximity with, this maxim of great significance. 2. The petitioners in all these petitions have assailed the impugned order dated 29th of August, 1996, whereby their services were terminated as Teacher Grade-III by the third respondent on the ground that Bachelor of Education degree obtained by petitioners, Krishna Gopal & Devi Lal, in the year 1992 and the petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Joshi, in the year 1991 is spurious. 3. Undisputed facts are that an advertisement was published in the month of September, 1995 bearing Advertisement No. 1/95 by the second respondent for making recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III under various panchayat samitis. As per the terms of the advertisement, total vacancies were notified as 225 with further bifurcation of the reserved vacancies. The case as set out in the writ petitions by all the petitioners is that all of them offered their candidatures for selection arid on being selected, appointment order was issued. Pursuant to appointment order, all of them joined their duties and started discharging their duties. It appears that there was some complaint about the degree of Bachelor of Education obtained by all the petitioners and categorizing the said degree as forged one, FIR was also registered with the Police Station Raipur, Bhilwara. Considering the fact that B.Ed. degrees of the petitioners were forged, their services were terminated by the impugned order. Assailing the order of termination, precisely the petitioners have urged in the writ petitions that although all of them are possessing a valid degree, their services have been terminated without assigning any cogent reason and making necessary, inquiry to unearth the truth about the allegation of the fake degrees. The petitioners have also asserted that the requisite B.Ed. degree was obtained by all of them from the Lucknow University and as such without making necessary inquiry in the matter, it cannot be categorized as forged. The petitioners have also asserted that the requisite B.Ed. degree was obtained by all of them from the Lucknow University and as such without making necessary inquiry in the matter, it cannot be categorized as forged. From the order impugned, it is clear that the petitioners were initially appointed on probation for two years and on revealing the fact about the forged degree, their services were brought to an end during probation period. 4. On behalf of the respondents, reply was submitted and it was averred in the reply that the petitioners have procured the appointment by producing forged degrees of B.Ed., and therefore, it was not possible for the respondents to retain them in services and as such there is no infirmity much less legal infirmity in the impugned termination order. The respondents have also stated in the reply that when the documents submitted by the petitioners were sent for verification a communication was received from University of Lucknow that mark-sheets of B.Ed., examination produced by the petitioners are forged. Castigating the petitioners for their dubious conduct of procuring the appointment on a forged document, it was pleaded in the reply that in such matters the principles of natural justice is not attracted and no relief can be granted to the petitioners. At the threshold, the matter came up before this Court on 2nd July, 2002 and the Court was pleased to pass following order:- By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the, order dated 29/8/96 by which services of the petitioners came to an end on the ground that degrees obtained by the petitioners, were found to be forged one. This Court received the communication dated 19.10.01 from the Deputy Secretary (Examination), Lucknow University, Lucknow. It appears that this communication was sent directly to the High Court wherein it is mentioned that disputed degrees are not forged one and all the students mentioned in the communication dated 19.10.01 of the Deputy Secretary (Examination), Lucknow University, Lucknow, passed the B. Ed. Examination and their mark-sheets as well as degrees are valid. It is also mentioned that in earlier letter, inadvertently, wrong information was sent by the University. Examination and their mark-sheets as well as degrees are valid. It is also mentioned that in earlier letter, inadvertently, wrong information was sent by the University. The petitioner has placed on record Anex.7 dated 11.4.96 which is also alleged to have been issued by Deputy Secretary (Examination), Lucknow University, Lucknow wherein it is mentioned that degrees are valid but at the same time, there is no one letter of Deputy Secretary (Examination), Lucknow University, Lucknow dated 21.8.96 which shows that degrees are forged one. In view of letter issued by Deputy Secretary (Examination), Lucknow University, Lucknow dated 19.10.01 which was received by High Court directly from the University, it will be appropriate to direct the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur to hold an inquiry either himself or through any Officer of his office not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to find out whether degrees obtained by petitioners in these petitions are forged one or not. The Enquiry Officer shall give full opportunity to the petitioner in the inquiry and shall complete the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and shall submit the finding alongwith proceedings before this Court within a period of two weeks thereafter. The learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for respondents are directed to send the copy of order to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur. Office is also directed to send the copy of order to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur and also send the copy of letter dated 19.10.01 sent to the High Court by Deputy Secretary (Examination), Lucknow University, Lucknow. Put up after ten weeks. 5. In compliance of the order of this court dated 2nd of July, 2002, inquiry report was submitted before the Court and on examining the same, the Court found it to be laconic for the reason that the same was not conducted in adherence of principles of natural justice. Put up after ten weeks. 5. In compliance of the order of this court dated 2nd of July, 2002, inquiry report was submitted before the Court and on examining the same, the Court found it to be laconic for the reason that the same was not conducted in adherence of principles of natural justice. On being satisfied, the Court passed following order on 3rd of February, 2004 for holding a de-novo inquiry within two months:- The respondents have produced the purported compliance report dated 7.8.2003 and it is not in dispute that in holding the inquiry, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner, while the order of this Court dated 2.7.2,002 clearly stipulated that the inquiry officer shall give full opportunity to the petitioner in the inquiry and the inquiry was to be completed within the period specified. In that view of the matter learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents will hold the fresh inquiry in accordance with the order of this Court dated 2.7.2002. This should be done within two months now. Put up after two months. 6. Once again, the matter came up before the Court on 23rd of August, 2004, but on behalf of the respondents, no concrete information pertaining to de-novo inquiry was divulged and taking serious note of the same, the Court passed following order:- Heard. An order was passed by this court on 03.02.2004 that a fresh inquiry should be held in accordance with the orders of this Court on 02.07.2002. While this court passed the order dated 02.07.2002, a copy of the order was endorsed to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur. After the order dated 02.07.02, an inquiry was conducted but directions of this court were flouted. First fault was committed by the respondent by not following the orders of this court dated 02.07.2002 in letter and spirit, then came the order dated 03.02.2004 which directed that a fresh inquiry be held in accordance with the orders of this court dated 02.07.02. Learned counsel appearing for the State Government is not in a position to inform this court, that any steps have been taken by the respondents to follow the orders of this court. After 03.02.04, almost six months have passed. Learned counsel appearing for the State Government is not in a position to inform this court, that any steps have been taken by the respondents to follow the orders of this court. After 03.02.04, almost six months have passed. The case has been listed in the court on more than one occasions but the learned Government Advocate has not taken any steps to inform the court about the progress of the matter. Even today, learned Government Advocate is not in a position to inform the court whether any inquiry as contemplated in the order dated 02.07.02 or 03.02.04 has been held or not. Obviously, the officers of State Government have shown no respect for the orders of this Court. Not only this that they have not obeyed the orders of this court but the Government Advocate is also not in a position to inform this court about the steps taken by them. Let a notice be issued to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur as to why he should not be punished for not following the orders of this Court as delineated in the order dated 02.07.02 and reiterated in the order dated 03.02.04. Learned Government Advocate will inform the Secretary concerned to come up with his defence for not following the orders of this Court and also to show as to what is proposed to be done in the matter. Put up on 27.08.2004. 7. On 4th May, 2005 when the matters came up before the Court, the petitioners have shown their inability to participate in the inquiry for the reason that they had no means to travel to Jaipur. Thereupon, the Court was pleased to entrust the inquiry to Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court and asked him to submit his report within a month. The order dated 4th May, 2005 is reproduced under:- Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the inquiry as stated to have been conducted was conducted after information to petitioners but they could not make themselves present because they had no means to travel to Jaipur. The matter involves certification of the degrees issued by a University. Dy. Registrar (Judicial) will make an inquiry in this regard. Petitioner will make themselves present before him on a date to be fixed by him. Dy. The matter involves certification of the degrees issued by a University. Dy. Registrar (Judicial) will make an inquiry in this regard. Petitioner will make themselves present before him on a date to be fixed by him. Dy. Registrar (Judicial) will intimate the Registrar, Lucknow University, Lucknow to send a responsible officer of the University alongwith the records pertaining to the degrees of the petitioners. The photo copies of the degrees will be send to the Registrar for ready reference to dispatch the record which is relevant in this regard. While requisition is made to the Registrar, Lucknow University, Lucknow, it should be made clear that any failure on the part of the University will be viewed seriously by this Court. Therefore, as and when an intimation received by the University, the record of the relevant examinations and consequential issuance of degrees pertaining to the three students involved in the three writ petitions namely, Devi lal, Dinesh Kumar and Krishan Gopal will be sent positively to this Court. Dy. Registrar (Judicial) will fix the date for summoning the petitioners and official of the Lucknow University, Lucknow alongwith the record. He will complete the inquiry within a period of one month. Put up after one month with the report. 8. Dy. Registrar (Judicial) will fix the date for summoning the petitioners and official of the Lucknow University, Lucknow alongwith the record. He will complete the inquiry within a period of one month. Put up after one month with the report. 8. The Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court made an inquiry in the matter and submitted its report on 22nd of August, 2005 with the following conclusions:- " 15- mijksDr reke lk{; ,oa izys[kksa ds lexz voyksdu ls fuEu fLFkfr izdV gS%& 1- rhuksa ;kphx.k loZ Jh nsohyky d`".kxksiky ,oa fnus'k dqekj tks'kh }kjk y[kum fo'ofo|ky; dh tks rFkkdfFkr vad rkfydk,sa viuh viuh fjV ;kfpdkvksa ds lkFk izLrqr dh gS os QthZ gS ,oa bu rhuksa ;kphx.k }kjk y[kum fo'ofo|ky; dh lEcfU/kr ch0,M0 ijh{kk ckcr fu;fer d{kkvksa esa v/;;u djus dk dksbZ fu'pk;d izek.k muds ikl ugha gSaA 2- ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds iwoZ vkns'k ds dze esa Jh ch0,y0 tSeu0vkbZ0,0,l0 }kjk dh xbZ tkap ds nkSjku Hkh ;kphx.k dh vad rkfydkvksa ds lEcU/k esa nks vyx vyx izdkj dh fojks/kkHkk"kh fLFkfr izdV gksus ds ckotwn mUgksusa y[kum fo'ofo|ky; dk ewy vfHkys[k izkIr djus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Bksl iz;kl ugha fd;k rFkk dsoy ek= ;kphx.k ds fo:) vkijkf/kd ekeyk yfEcr gksus ds rF; ds ifjizs{; esa dsoy ek= ljljh tkap dj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k viuk izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA 3- ;|fi mDr rhuksa ;kphx.k ds fo:) igys ls HkhyokM+k U;k;k{ks= esa /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vUrxZr fopkj.k yfEcr gS rFkkfi v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk dh xbZ tkap esa vfHkys[k ij tks lkexzh izkIr dh xbZ gS] mlls ;g izdV gS fd yEcs le; ls y[kum fo'ofo|ky; ds ch0,M0 ikB~;dze ds lekukUrj blh fo'ofo|ky; ds uke ls ,d vyx gh laLFkk MkW0 vlye csx tSls O;fDr;ksa }kjk lapkfyr dh tk jgh gS ,oa bl laEHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd ,slh lekukUrj laLFkk }kjk tkjh QthZ vadrkfydkvksa ds vk/kkj ij jktLFkku jkT; esa vkSj Hkh O;fDr;ksa }kjk f'k{kdksa ds :i esa fu;qfDr izkIr dj yh xbZ gks vr% bl lEcU/k esa vkijkf/kd izdj.k vyx ls ntZ dj mPp Lrjh; iqfyl vUos"k.k djk;s tkus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj fo|eku gSaA " 9. The inquiry report submitted by the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) clearly & unequivocally reveals that the mark-sheet of Bachelor of Education produced by all the petitioners is spurious and the same has not been issued by the Lucknow University. The inquiry report submitted by the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) clearly & unequivocally reveals that the mark-sheet of Bachelor of Education produced by all the petitioners is spurious and the same has not been issued by the Lucknow University. Therefore, on the basis of that report, there remains no doubt that the petitioners have procured appointed by producing a forged degree of B.Ed., and in such a situation, this Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction cannot come to their rescue. Lord Denning in the case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley reported in [1956] 1 All E.R. 341 has held that any declaration proved to have been forged and fraudulent is a nullity and void, the Court of Appeal made following observations:- We are in this case concerned only with this point: Can the declaration be challenged on the ground that it was false and fraudulent ? It can clearly be challenged in the criminal courts. The landlord can be taken before the magistrate and fined 30 (see Sch. 2, para. 6) or he can be prosecuted on indictment, and (if he is an individual) sent to prison (see section 5 of the Perjury Act, 1911). The landlords argued before us that the declaration could not be challenged in the civil courts at all, even though it was false and fraudulent, and that the landlords can recover and keep the increased rent even though it was obtained by fraud. If this argument is correct, the landlords would profit greatly from their fraud. The increase in rent would pay the fine many times over. I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see, as to deeds, Collins v. Blantern (2) (1767) (2 Wils. K.B. 342) , as to judgments, Duchess of Kingston's Case (3) (1776) (1 Leach 146), and, as to contracts, Master v. Miller (4) (1791) (4 Term Rep. 320) . K.B. 342) , as to judgments, Duchess of Kingston's Case (3) (1776) (1 Leach 146), and, as to contracts, Master v. Miller (4) (1791) (4 Term Rep. 320) . So here I am of opinion that, if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void and the landlords cannot recover any increase of rent by virtue of it. 10. Reiterating the principle that fraud and justice never dwell together, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh Rathore & Ors. [ (2000) 3 SCC 581 ] has held as under in paras 12 to 16:- 12. No one can possibly fault the Insurance Company for persistently pursuing the matter up to this Court because they are dealing with public money. If they have discovered that such public fund, in a whopping measure, would be knocked off fraudulently through a fake claim, there is full justification for the Insurance Company in approaching the Tribunal itself first. At any rate the High Court ought not to have refused to consider their grievances. What is the legal remedy when a party to a judgment or order of court later discovered that it was obtained by fraud? 13. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath the two-Judge Bench of this Court held: (SCC p. 2, para 1) "`Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal' observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition 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." 14. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. another two-Judge Bench, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus: (SCC p. 563, para 23) "23. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings." 14. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. another two-Judge Bench, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus: (SCC p. 563, para 23) "23. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of court, the courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that court. Similarly, where the court is misled by a party or the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the court has the inherent power to recall its order. " 15. It is unrealistic to expect the appellant Company to resist a claim at the first instance on the basis of the fraud because the appellant Company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud allegedly played by the claimants. If the Insurance Company comes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation, and if by that time the award was already passed, it would not be possible for the Company to file a statutory appeal against the award. Not only because of the bar of limitation to file the appeal but the consideration of the appeal even if the delay could be condoned, would be limited to the issues formulated from the pleadings made till then. 16. Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly-discovered, facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2004(1) S.C.T 673 : (2004) 2 SCC 105 ] has held that an incumbent procuring appointment in a reserved, post by producing false certificate is not entitled for protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India because a person illegally appointed is not a person holding a civil post. [2004(1) S.C.T 673 : (2004) 2 SCC 105 ] has held that an incumbent procuring appointment in a reserved, post by producing false certificate is not entitled for protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India because a person illegally appointed is not a person holding a civil post. Upholding the order of dismissal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 15 of the verdict:- 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 eye of the law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by plying 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 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 a 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 Castes. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to this Court, he has disqualified himself to hold the post. The 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 the 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. As the 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. Upon examining the matter with objectivity and on the anvil of pristine maxim, in my opinion, the impugned order of termination is a just order and the same cannot be categorized as infirm from any stretch of imagination. 12. After perusing the inquiry report, this Court has passed an order dated 24th October, 2005 to make an inquiry about those individuals who have obtained employment by producing fraudulent degrees and to take appropriate action. So far, no concrete compliance report has been placed on record by the respondents, in this behalf. Therefore, the respondents are directed to ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court to unearth the truth and to take appropriate action against those individuals who have procured employment by producing false degrees of Bachelor of Education. It is made clear that since October 2005 almost eight years have elapsed and the respondents have not made sincere endeavour to make compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 24th October, 2005, which is a matter of grave concern. It is expected that the respondents shall make compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 24th October, 2005 within a period of four months from today positively and shall apprise this Court by submitting the compliance report by 28th February, 2014.Resultantly, I find no merit in all these petitions and same are accordingly dismissed with the observations made above.A copy of this order be kept in all these files. *******