JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 19.04.2014 (Annexure-19 to the writ application) issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro (respondent no.4) whereby petitioner has been removed from services and the petitioner further prayed for direction upon the respondent more particularly respondent no.4 to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that in pursuance to advertisement dated 10.10.2009, published for the post of Laboratory Technician, National Para Medical, the petitioner applied for the same and was selected along with others. In pursuance to the selection, the respondent no.4 issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 06.04.2010 vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. As per joining on the said post, the petitioner continued her duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities. During continuance of service, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.7 on 17.06.2011 and in pursuance to the show cause notice the petitioner submitted her reply. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No.41 of 2014 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2014 with direction to the respondent no.3, Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro to take a decision in the matter upon receipt of a copy of the order along with representation of the petitioner within a reasonable time preferably 10 weeks thereafter. The impugned order dated 19.04.2014 has been passed by the respondent authorities whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 19.04.2014, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievances. 3. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as Lab Technician on contractual basis and the petitioner joined in APHC, Kanjikiro and she has been working on forged certificate of Indian Institute of Medical Technology registered under Society Registration Act. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as Lab Technician on contractual basis and the petitioner joined in APHC, Kanjikiro and she has been working on forged certificate of Indian Institute of Medical Technology registered under Society Registration Act. Upon verification of Technical certificate of the petitioner issued by Indian Institute of Technology, it has been found that the certificate of the petitioner is forged one and the Registration No.132/2001 was issued in the name of Mahila Samagik Sewa Samitee. It has further been submitted that during verification of the documents, the petitioner who was appointed on contractual basis along with five more persons submitted the certificate from Institute of Medical Technology, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer sent the proposal of termination of similarly situated Para Medical Staffs to Deputy Commissioner- cum-Chairman, RCH, Bokaro vide memo dated 20.01.2015 vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that in pursuance to direction of this Court dated 18.02.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No.41/2014 the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro passed the reasoned order dated 19.04.2014. 4. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it has been submitted that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro vide memo no.2830 dated 30.11.2015 terminated the services of all the similarly situated persons as per Annexure-A to supplementary counter affidavit. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the writ petition does not warrant any interference by this Court, due to the following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as a contractual employee having obtained certificate from Institute of Medical Technology, Ranchi. The petitioner along with similarly situated persons were also engaged but subsequently on verification it has been found that the certificate obtained by the petitioner appears to be forged and the Indian Institute of Medical Technology, Ranchi from where the same has been issued is a fake institute. Since, the petitioner along with similarly situated persons have been dismissed from services as evident from Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit, therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.04.2014. (II) It is settled principles of law that the appointment obtained through fraudulent means, no principles of natural justice is required. Since, the petitioner along with similarly situated persons have been dismissed from services as evident from Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit, therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.04.2014. (II) It is settled principles of law that the appointment obtained through fraudulent means, no principles of natural justice is required. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 : [2013 (3) JLJR (SC) 487] (Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.), wherein at paragraph 13 and 18, it has been held as under:- “13. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. “ Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath.) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley the Court observed without equivocation that: (QB P. 712) “… No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.” 18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, observed as under: (M. Bhaskaran case, SCC P. 104, para 6) If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.” 6. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 19.04.2014 vide Annexure-19 to the writ application, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.