ORDER : Heard learned counsel of the parties. 2. Petitioner obtained appointment on the post of Sahayika for the Anganbari Center, Kura, Block Sarath, District Deoghar on the basis of class VIII passed certificate on 15/05/2004, vide Annexure-1. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent-Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, vide memo no 713 dated 05/12/2010. On the said ground the petitioner challenged this order of termination in W.P.(S) no 611/2011 which was allowed by judgment dated 11/07/2011 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the said charge. It was, however, also observed that if the respondents have still any legal ground to proceed against the petitioner, the said judgment does not prevent the respondents from taking steps in accordance with law. Petitioner, thereafter, was given due opportunity to meet the said charge. Thereafter the impugned order dated 03/01/2013, vide memo no 79 was passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, Annexure-7, perusal thereof indicates that the petitioner has not been able to refute the specific contention that the certificate produced on her behalf was forged as has been found from the inquiry conducted from the school in question. The only defence she has taken is that for appointment to the post of Sahayika, the requirement is only being literate and no other specific educational qualification. Despite of due opportunity granted to the petitioner, even after more the one year, she has been unable to produce any evidence in support that her educational certificate was not forged. Taking into account these facts the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar has passed the impugned order by terminating her services and also considering the fact that she is a lady, no criminal case was instituted against her. It appears that the impugned order has been passed after due compliance of the principle of the natural justice as directed in the judgment passed in the petitioner’s case earlier and taking note of the fact that she has produced a forged certificate. 3. Having considered all relevant aspects of the matter, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to continue on the post of Sahayika in such manner on the strength of her argument that it only requires a simple literate. 3. Having considered all relevant aspects of the matter, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to continue on the post of Sahayika in such manner on the strength of her argument that it only requires a simple literate. Such appointment procured on the basis of a forged certificate, cannot be saved in the eye of law and it has to meet the same fate. 4. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.