JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J.: - Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ganga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has arisen from order dated 7.3.2009 passed by competent authority i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Banda terminating the petitioner, who was working as Health Worker in Primary Health Centre on the ground that she obtained appointment on the basis of an alleged training certificate of ANM, which was found forged and fictitious and therefore, appointment having been obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation, the petitioner had to be terminated. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner claimed to have obtained training of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife from training centre, Farrukhabad as Basic Health Worker (Female). She claimed to have obtained training and has also submitted application with registration fee before U.P. Nurses and Midwife Council, Lucknow and then submitted an application seeking appointment whereupon a letter was issued by Joint Director, Maternity and Child Welfare, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "J.D.") directing Chief Medical Officer, Banda (hereinafter referred to as "C.M.O.")to take steps for appointment of petitioner in Banda District as Basic Health Worker (Female). Consequently, by order dated 11.9.1989, Chief Medical Officer has appointed the petitioner as Basic Health Worker (Female) [hereinafter referred to as "BHW(F)"] in the pay scale of 354-550, pursuant whereto, petitioner joined on the said post. 4. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 30.1.1996 by Chief Medical Officer, Banda alleging that her training documents have been found forged and fictitious and therefore, it appears that appointment, she has obtained by playing fraud and should show cause as to why her services be not terminated and accordingly, action by lodging FIR be also not initiated against her. The petitioner claimed to have submitted reply on 8.2.1996. She claimed that all the original documents regarding training etc., she has submitted in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Banda, which were not returned to her and therefore she is not able to provide the original document for verification and it appears that some interested person may have replaced the valid documents though she has not committed any fraud. 5. The Chief Medical Officer, Banda, however, passed order on 5.2.1997 terminating the petitioner and consequently, In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kamasin, Banda passed consequential order on 12.2.1997. 6. 5. The Chief Medical Officer, Banda, however, passed order on 5.2.1997 terminating the petitioner and consequently, In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kamasin, Banda passed consequential order on 12.2.1997. 6. The aforesaid two orders came to be assailed in Writ Petition No.17332 of 1997 on the ground that no adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and only on the basis of preliminary enquiry, she has been terminated. On the ground of denial of opportunity, this Court, vide judgment dated 16.2.1999 allowed the writ petition and set aside the aforesaid two orders, impugned in the above writ petition. The operating part of judgment dated 16.2.1999 reads as under : "Accordingly, the petitioner succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 5.2.97 and 12.2.97 are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential reliefs but it shall be open to the respondents to pass such order as may be deemed fit and proper after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner." 7. The petitioner, therefore, was restored to service by the order of Chief Medical Officer, Banda. A fresh show cause notice was issued on 26/27.8.2008, requiring the petitioner and few other Basic Health Worker (Female), who were also alleged to have obtained appointment on the basis of fraudulent documents relating to training and directing them to produce their documents before Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Banda and also participate in the enquiry before him. The petitioner claimed to have appeared before Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Banda and placed relevant documents. It is said that her statement was also recorded on 3.9.2008 and thereafter, impugned order dated 7.3.2009 has been passed, terminating petitioner on the ground that she has been appointed on the basis of forged and fictitious documents relating to training. It is said that aforesaid order is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It is founded on a preliminary enquiry without regular enquiry and therefore in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents sworn by Dr. K.N. Srivastava, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Banda stating that petitioner submitted forged training certificate though it was a fictitious document having never been issued by such authority. The petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing but she failed to prove genuity of all these documents hence authorities have rightly passed the order terminating her services. 9. K.N. Srivastava, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Banda stating that petitioner submitted forged training certificate though it was a fictitious document having never been issued by such authority. The petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing but she failed to prove genuity of all these documents hence authorities have rightly passed the order terminating her services. 9. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stressed that no regular departmental enquiry was held and that the petitioner has discharged her duties very satisfactorily for the last more than a decade. Her termination, by means of impugned order, is clearly illegal. 10. This Court has to examine only two aspects in this matter: (A) Whether petitioner was not afforded any opportunity before passing the impugned order? (B) Whether Article 311(2) of the Constitution will apply where appointment said to have been obtained by an employee founded on forged and fictitious documents? 11. It is not disputed that for appointment to the post of Health Worker in Primary Health Centre, mandatory eligibility condition was that incumbent must have undergone training of ANM from a recognized training centre. From Annexure 1 to the writ petition, pursuant whereto the petitioner was appointed, it is evident that no procedure of advertisement of vacancy and thereafter selection etc. by a Selection Committee was followed. The petitioner himself submitted an application with J.D., stating that she has obtained ANM training from Farrukhabad and has also submitted requisite fee for her registration with U.P. Nurses and Midwife Council, Lucknow hence she be appointed as ANM in District Banda. The J.D. issued a direction for her appointment by his letter dated 25.8.1989 to the CMO. Without any further scrutiny and application of mind, the then CMO issued letter of appointment dated 11.9.1989 appointing petitioner as BHW(F) in the scale of Rs.354-550 and posted at Primary Health Centre Kamasin, District Banda. The letter of appointment further states that as per the conditions of training, she is committed to serve for two years with State of Uttar Pradesh else the cost of training is liable to be recovered from her. The appointment of petitioner was subject to furnishing several documents which included certified copy of registration certificate also. 12. The petitioner joined pursuant to aforesaid letter of appointment. The appointment of petitioner was subject to furnishing several documents which included certified copy of registration certificate also. 12. The petitioner joined pursuant to aforesaid letter of appointment. Subsequently training documents along with letter dated 25.8.1989 were sought to be verified from respective offices and it came to the notice that training documents was forged and letter relating to appointment was not issued by office concerned i.e. J.D. The natural inference flowing therefrom was that petitioner obtained appointment by playing fraud and misrepresentation and forged documents. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 30.1.1996 was issued to the petitioner by CMO. The petitioner actually received this notice on 2.2.1996 from the office of In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Kamasin, Banda. She submitted her reply also vide letter dated 8.2.1996 and in paras 4, 5 and 6, with regard to her testimonials, she replied as under: ^^4- ;g fd yxHkx 8 o"kZ dh lsok ds mijkUr izkFkhZ dks ;g uksfVl fn;k x;k gS] izkFkhZ }kjk nkf[ky vfHkys[k QthZ gS] bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dk fuosnu gS dksbZ Hkh vfHkys[k QthZ ugha gS vkSj rHkh nLrkost l{ke vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fu;ekuqlkj tkjh fd;s x;s gSa vkSj izkFkhZ dh ewy fu;qfDr ds le; lHkh vfHkys[kksa dh tkap dj yh x;h Fkh vkSj iw.kZ : i ls larq"V gksus ds mijkUr gh izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dh x;h FkhA 5- ;g fd lHkh vfHkys[k ewy: i ls vkids dk;kZy; esa fu;qfDr ds le; ls gks tek gS vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk ckj&ckj ekax fd;s tkus ij Hkh okil ugha fd;s gSaA 6- ;g fd lEHko gS fd vkids dk;kZy; ds fdlh LokFkhZ deZpkjh us vfHkys[k cny fn;s gksaA** "(4) That after nearly eight years of service, the applicant was given this notice alleging that the records filed by him are forged. In this regard, the applicant submits that none of the records is forged; all the documents have been issued by the competent authorities as per rules; all the records had been verified at the time of the applicant's substantive appointment; and that he was awarded appointment only after being fully satisfied with them. (5) That all the documents in original are deposited with your office right from the time of appointment and the same have not been returned even after repeated requests made by the applicant. (5) That all the documents in original are deposited with your office right from the time of appointment and the same have not been returned even after repeated requests made by the applicant. (6) it is possible that some employee of your office having ulterior motive may have replaced the records." (English Translation by the Court) 13. The petitioner, therefore, took a stand that she does not possess any original document. The same were submitted in the office of CMO at the time of appointment and were not returned to her and subsequently some interested person may have replaced the original documents. 14. The CMO considered the said reply and also verification report, which it has received from Training Centre, Farrukhanad verifying that marks sheet and certificate and other documents relating to training submitted by petitioner were all forged and fictitious. Even fee receipt of State Medical Faculty was also found forged. It is in view of the aforesaid, CMO passed order on 5.2.1997 terminating petitioner since she was found guilty of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged documents. The aforesaid order of termination dated 5.2.1997 was communicated to the petitioner by Incharge Medical Officer vide letter dated 12.2.1997 and he directed petitioner to hand over charge to another person namely Smt. Malti Srivastanva. 15. The aforesaid two orders were assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No.17332 of 1997 and this Court quashed the same on the ground that preliminary enquiry report, on the basis whereof termination order were passed, was not communicated to the petitioner and hence impugned orders were in violation of principles of natural justice. 16. Again Dr. S.K.Vasvani, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Banda was appointed as enquiry officer and petitioner was issued notice dated 26/27.8.2008 to appear before the said enquiry officer along with relevant documents. It has been stated in para 25 of the writ petition that petitioner appeared before enquiry officer and placed relevant record pertaining to her appointment and got her statement recorded on 3.9.2008. Thereafter a fresh termination order was passed on 7.3.2009. 17. In para 18, 19 and 20 of counter affidavit it has been stated that petitioner did not produce any material to prove genuity of documents pertaining to ANM Training. Thereafter a fresh termination order was passed on 7.3.2009. 17. In para 18, 19 and 20 of counter affidavit it has been stated that petitioner did not produce any material to prove genuity of documents pertaining to ANM Training. It is not the case of the petitioner in entire writ petition that the preliminary enquiry report or the material collected against petitioner was not disclosed to her. The ground taken in the writ petition is that a regular enquiry consistent with principles of natural justice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution ought to have been conducted and since no such enquiry has been conducted, therefore, entire proceedings are illegal and liable to be set aside. 18. It may be noticed at this stage that along with writ petition, no material or document has been placed by petitioner to throw any light on genuity of her ANM training. In rejoinder affidavit a copy of petitioner's reply dated 2.9.2008, which she submitted before enquiry officer, after receiving notice dated 26/27.8.2008, has been placed on record, and therein also she said nothing except that all the documents relating to her appointment were already submitted in the office on 13.3.1994, which have not been returned and therefore, there is no justification for proceeding against petitioner. 19. When Training Centre itself has informed the authorities concerned that documents of training submitted by petitioner were forged and fictitious, onus lay upon petitioner to show genuity thereof. She could have submitted various documents like fee receipt, which she submitted in training centre and other documents, which she must have obtained during the course of training. She could have got a verification from institution itself about genuity of those training document, if she had actually gone therewith. Neither there is any such attempt on the part of petitioner nor she has placed any material either before authority concerned or before this Court also even to suggest or demonstrate that her ANM training from training centre Farrukhabad was genuine and valid. In absence of any material, this Court find no reason to believe the stand of respondents that alleged training of petitioner was nonest and documents submitted by her were forged and fictitious, as verified by Training Centre Farrukhabad also. 20. In absence of any material, this Court find no reason to believe the stand of respondents that alleged training of petitioner was nonest and documents submitted by her were forged and fictitious, as verified by Training Centre Farrukhabad also. 20. Now, in these facts and circumstances both the questions, formulated above, will have to be examined to find out whether a regular enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution would be necessary when the very appointment of person concerned is founded on forged and fictitious documents. 21. In my view, answer to the question would not hold this Court any further having already been settled by the Apex Court. A three Judges Bench of Apex Court has answered it in R.Vishwantha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1469 . It has been held therein that if appointment is claimed on a false basis, such an appointment is no appointment in the eyes of law. Such a person cannot claim a right to the post as he has usurped the post by playing fraud and producing a false certificate. Unless a person can lay a claim to the post on the basis of valid appointment, he cannot claim constitutional guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution. There appointment was claimed on the basis of false caste certificate and referring thereto, the Court said: "As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of c 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. ....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. 22. 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. 22. While taking the above view, the Court also expressed its agreement with a Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Ishwar Dayal Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 1987, Lab.I.C. 390, where also a similar view was expressed in the following words: "If the very appointment to civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 can possible flow from such a tainted force. In such a situation, the question is whether the person concerned is at all a civil servant of the Union or the State and if he is not validly so, then the issue remains outside the purview of Article 311. If the very entry or the crossing of the threshold into the arena of the civil service of the State or the Union is put in issue and door is barred against him, the cloak of protection under Article 311 is not attracted." 23. Similarly, a Full Bench judgment of the said Court in Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, AIR 1988 Patna 26, was also affirmed. 24. In view of above binding precedent and exposition of law laid down by Apex Court, it cannot be accepted that the facts of the present case attract provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution when petitioner has obtained appointment founded on forged documents pertaining to ANM training. When the documents are forged, meaning thereby, petitioner was not a validly trained person and therefore, does not fulfil requisite eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of ANM and hence the very appointment was void ab initio since its inception. 25. In the circumstances, both the questions, formulated above, are answered against petitioner, inasmuch as, question (A) is answered holding that petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity and question (B) is answered by holding that Article 311(2) of the Constitution has no application in the case in hand. 26. In the result, no interference is called for with the order impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-