ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the respondent no.3 pertaining to termination from services on the post of Sevika of Aanganbari Centre, Jiyakhara, Deoghar and for direction to respondent to reappoint the petitioner on the former posts. 2. The facts as emanated from the writ application, in a nutshell is that the impugned order of termination dated 12.02.2014 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and the order of termination suffers from malafide motive and smacks of arbitrary power on the part of the respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.3 who is not the competent authority to pass the order therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and liable to be quashed. 3. Per-contra, controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.2 to 5. Learned counsel for the State, J.C to A.A.G has reiterated submissions made in the counter-affidavit. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the State has assiduously submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit as per the averment made in the writ application and the writ petition is liable to be quashed with exemplary cost because the petitioner has been accused of indulging in committing forgery of certificate produced by him. On perusal of the said certificate it is quite apparent that the date of birth is mentioned as 21.10.1991, issued from the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi and the copy of the provisional certificate produced by the petitioner has been annexed as annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the State further submits that an affidavit sworn by the petitioner dated 15.05.2007 in which the petitioner date of birth is mentioned as 01.05.1988, contrary to the date of birth mentioned in the certificate produced by her which goes to prove the malafide intention on the part of the writ petitioner and the selection of the petitioner has been made on the forged certificate regarding date of Birth. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 has been pleased to hold in paragraph nos. 13, 16, 17 and 18, which are quoted hereunder:- “13. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 has been pleased to hold in paragraph nos. 13, 16, 17 and 18, which are quoted hereunder:- “13. It is a 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: “… 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.” 16. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh this Court observed that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper over all these centuries. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana. 17. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi this Court held that “misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud”, and further held:- “18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.” The said judgment was reconsidered and approved by this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav. 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.” 5. Having heard, learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the evidences on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has secured employment of sevika by indulging forgery and she is guilty of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of admitted facts. Having heard, learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the evidences on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has secured employment of sevika by indulging forgery and she is guilty of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of admitted facts. Law is well settled that if any employment has been obtained by forgery, there is no need to comply with the principle of natural justice. In that view of the matter, the writ petition ought to be dismissed with exemplary cost for indulging him in suppression of fact and forgery of documents. On the query made to the counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the meantime, the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and criminal case is said to be in motion. Therefore, this Court refrains from awarding any cost. Viewed thus, the impugned order of termination vide Annexure-2 dated 12.02.2014 does not warrant any interference by this court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.