ORDER : Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. 1. The matter comes up on I.A. No. 52844/2015, with a prayer for final adjudication of the matters. In view of the limited controversy raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at this stage with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In all these three writ applications, identical questions of law and facts are involved; hence these petitions are being adjudicated upon by this common order. The facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 19082/2013 (Gopal Singh & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others), being the lead case, are taken note of. 3. Briefly stated the essential skeletal material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are that the petitioners, after having acquired qualification of Higher Secondary and two years certificate of Basic Teacher Training Course (BTC) from Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur, Patna; participated in the recruitment process for the post of Teacher Gr. III for the vacancies advertised in the year 1992-93 and rendered services upto 1993 as a consequence of their selection and appointment. However, later-on it surfaced that the qualifications acquired by them from Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur, Patna; were in fact fake qualifications. Number of writ applications were instituted before this Court complaining of termination of employment on the basis of alleged fake educational qualifications. The matter travelled upto Division Bench wherein directions were issued to the State-respondents to consider the case of incumbents, who obtained diploma subject to the decision of investigation/inquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ applications, emphatically argued that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ applications of the petitioners with the operative directions to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III, provided they fulfilled the educational qualifications and pass appropriate order within one month from the date a copy of the judgment was made available to the respondents. 5. According to the learned counsel, the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners, on same set of facts, have attained finality in view of the judgment and order dated 19.6.2013, wherein the petitioners have been acquitted extending the benefit of doubt from the charges for offence under Sections 420, 120-B and 471 IPC. 5. According to the learned counsel, the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners, on same set of facts, have attained finality in view of the judgment and order dated 19.6.2013, wherein the petitioners have been acquitted extending the benefit of doubt from the charges for offence under Sections 420, 120-B and 471 IPC. Copy of the judgment dated 19.6.2013 has been placed on record as Annexure-6. 6. In response to the notice of writ applications, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavits placing on record the order passed by the Division Bench dated 7.9.1988 so also a copy of the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench dated 25.11.1992. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General for the State-respondents, the investigation carried out by the CBI revealed that it was a racket wherein the fake educational qualifications were being distributed for monetary considerations as would be reflected from the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 25.11.92. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that there was no recognition accorded to the educational qualifications acquired from the Institution involved herein from the State of Bihar. However, the recognition granted in the year 1987 was also withdrawn with retrospective effect, keeping in view the report submitted by the CBI, which has been taken note of by the coordinate Bench in the order dated 25.11.1992. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance carefully perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar. 9. From a glance at the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 7.9.1988, it is evident that the State of Rajasthan vide order dated 13.10.87, de-recognized and withdrew the recognition granted by it vide order dated 24.7.87 with retrospective effect. The Division Bench on conclusion of the matter observed that the incumbents, who obtained diploma shall be entitled for consideration, if they apply for the post of Teacher Gr. III, subject to the decision of the investigation/inquiry. 10. After investigation into the matter, the CBI returned a specific finding of fake certificates of educational qualifications issued by the College under the name "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur, Patna." 11. III, subject to the decision of the investigation/inquiry. 10. After investigation into the matter, the CBI returned a specific finding of fake certificates of educational qualifications issued by the College under the name "Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur, Patna." 11. Taking note of the conclusion arrived at on a thorough investigation by CBI, the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 25.11.92, recorded a finding to the effect that the Institute, which had issued the educational qualification, in fact, was not in existence and a shop was being operated by certain persons who use to issue false certificates and mark-sheets to the candidates without providing any training to them for monetary considerations. A specific reference has been made to the report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Writ Petition No. 4224/1992. The investigation conducted disclosed that during the period 1986-1989, the accused persons named in the charge-sheet entered into the criminal conspiracy at Sripalpur, Patna, Jaipur, Delhi and at many places with the object to commit the offence of cheating, forgery and for the use of forged documents. 12. Reference has also been made to another opinion of the Co-ordinate Bench wherein the petitioners or the one who obtained the certificates from the Institute involved herein, were held to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher-Gr. III under the State-respondents. 13. The only fact that has been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, while stating claim for the relief prayed for, is acquittal of the petitioners in the Criminal Case. 14. It will be relevant to take note of the fact that the petitioners have been acquitted extending the benefit of doubt for the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt for charge under Section 420 read with 120-B and 471 read with 120-B IPC. That apart, mere acquittal in the criminal case would not confer any eligibility in favour of petitioners on the basis of certificates which were found to be issued by an institute which was not in existence. Further, the certificates conferring eligibility were fake and were issued for monetary considerations. 15. It is trite law that where an applicant gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 16. Further, the certificates conferring eligibility were fake and were issued for monetary considerations. 15. It is trite law that where an applicant gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 16. In the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 363 on a review of earlier opinions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. "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 eyes of law. Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. (Vide: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Others, AIR 1994 SC 853 . In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All E.R. 349, 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." In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Another, AIR 1994 SC 2151 and State of Maharashtra & Others v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 , this Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law." In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Bros., AIR 1992 SC 1555 , it has been held as under:-"Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct." In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Others, AIR 2000 SC 1165 , 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 & Others, AIR 1984 SC 1888 . 15. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Others, AIR 2004 SC 4096 , this Court held that "misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud" and further held "fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully 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 re-considered and approved by this Court in Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Another v. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325). 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. 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 & Others v. M. Bhaskaran, AIR 1996 SC 686 , this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 , observed as under:- "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." In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Others v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 , this Court examined the similar case where the appointment was refused on the post of Police Constable and the Court observed as under: "It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequence. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequence. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service." (Emphasis added) In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, AIR 2003 SC 1709 and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu, AIR 2005 SC 4292 , this Court examined a similar case, wherein, employment had been obtained by suppressing a material fact at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the Form was printed in English and he did not know the language, and therefore, could not understand what information was sought. This Court held that as he did not furnish the information correctly at the time of filling up the Form, the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case registered against him or the nature of offences were immaterial. "The requirement of filling column Nos. 12 and 13 of the Attestation Form" was for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the Attestation Form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuation in service. In State of Haryana & Others v. Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2008 SC 1083 , this Court held that there has to be a deliberate and willful misrepresentation and in case the applicant was not aware of his involvement in any criminal case or pendency of any criminal prosecution against him, the situation would be different. In Secretary, Department of Home, A.P. & Others v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 , this Court held that facts are to be examined in each individual case and the candidate is not supposed to furnish information which is not specifically required in a case where information sought dealt with prior convictions by a criminal Court. The candidate answered it in the negative, the court held that it would not amount to misrepresentation merely because on that date a criminal case was pending against him. The candidate answered it in the negative, the court held that it would not amount to misrepresentation merely because on that date a criminal case was pending against him. The question specifically required information only about prior convictions. In R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police & Others, AIR 2008 SC 578 , this Court held that furnishing wrong information by the candidate while seeking appointment makes him unsuitable for appointment and liable for removal/termination if he furnished wrong information when the said information is specifically sought by the appointing authority." 17. From the facts and materials available on record, it is evident that the petitioners secured appointment on the basis of certificates of Basic Teacher Training Course (B.T.C.) from Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Sripalpur, Patna. The educational qualification, surfaced to be by fake institute and forged documents; as would be reflected from the conclusion arrived at by the C.B.I. on an investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners acquired the so called qualification of B.T.C. from the same institute. 18. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ applications are devoid of any substance and lacks any merit and therefore deserves to be dismissed. 19. Ordered accordingly. 20. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.