JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J. 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner-appellant against the judgment dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the Writ Court in CWJC No. 7992 of 2011. 2. The Writ Court on consideration of the materials available on the record including the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority (for short „the appellate authority?) in case No. 252/2010 dated 4.3.2011 dismissed the writ application and upheld the order of the appellate authority. 3. The Writ Court after scrutiny and appreciation of the reasoning of the appellate authority in adjudicating the case of the appellant and the private respondent has dismissed the writ application holding that the reasons for so called removal of the private respondents-appellant herein from the post of Shiksha Mitra was found to be arbitrary by the appellate authority after taking into consideration the evidence and has held that there was adequate evidence that the private respondent had passed the Intermediate examination within 33 months of the engagement as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as such he should not have been removed in the very first place on that pretext. 4. Mr. P.K.Shahi, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the judgment of the Writ Court on the ground that the Writ Court has misconstrued the attending facts and circumstances of the case. Referring to Annexure-4 he submitted that the Employment Unit has terminated the respondent No. 8 and in his place the writ petitioner-appellant was appointed and as such on the cut off date 1.7.2016 the respondent No. 8 was not working as Shiksha Mitra rather the writ petitioner-appellant was working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra but ignoring this fact the appellate authority decided the appeal in favour of respondent No. 8 and the Writ Court has committed illegality in upholding the decision of the appellate authority. He also submitted that before the appellate authority, the respondent No. 8 has only raised grievance as to non-payment of salary as is evident from Annexure-7, whereas after Annexure-7, he sought withdrawal of the writ petition, CWJC No. 15375 of 2006 on 6.7.2010 and thereafter the appellate authority in illegal and arbitrary manner decided his case vide order dated 4.3.2011. He submitted with reference to the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Kalpana Rani Vs. He submitted with reference to the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Kalpana Rani Vs. The State of Bihar and others: 2014(2) PLJR 665 , the Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors: 2011(4) PLJR 297 and the order of the Division Bench dated 27.7.2017 passed in LPA No. 734 of 2015 and contended that the appellate authority as well as the Writ Court have committed illegality in deciding the issue of Shiksha Mitra as after the abolition of the post of Shiksha Mitra, the appellate authority was not competent to decide the issue with regard to the legality and validity of the continuance of the respondent No. 8 and engagement of the writ petitioner-appellant in his place. 5. Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Hars Singh submitted that the appellate authority after hearing the writ petitioner (appellant herein) has passed the order contained in Annexure-8 and there is no illegality in the order of the appellate authority and the judgment of the Writ Court. He further submitted that there is concurrent finding of the appellate authority as well as the Writ Court on the point that alleged termination of the writ petitioner-appellant was a nullity and in the absence of valid termination the question of filling up of post by appointing the writ petitioner-appellant does not arise. He also submitted with reference to various documents that all through the respondent No. 8 was functioning as Panchayat Shikshak upto the cut off date and even thereafter and considering the entire factual aspect and by making inquiry from the concerned Headmaster, Panchayat Secretary and other officials, the appellate authority has rightly held out that without issuing any show cause notice the respondent-Kamlesh Kumar could not have been terminated as he has acquired qualification of Intermediate within 33 months. The relevant part of the order of the appellate authority is quoted below:- Hindi “ iapk;r lfpo fu;kstu bdkbZ xzke iapk;r lSnkiqj&xksoklk us cryk;k fd ekuuh; eqf[k;k dh v/;{krk eas iapk;r eq[;ky; esa vke lHkk dh xbZ ftlesa izkFkfed fo/kky; lSnkiqj&xksoklk ds iapk;r f’k{kkfe= dks lsok ls gVkus dk izLrko 10- 02-06 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA bl vk’k; dk vadu dk;Zokgh iqfLrdk ds cSBd esa fy;s x;s vU; fu.kZ; ds vafre iafDr esa tksM+k x;k gS] ;g cSBd 10-02-06 dks gh gqbZ Fkh ftlesa Li"V gS fd bl cSBd esa vafre dM+h esa iapk;r f’k{kkfe= dks gVkus dh ckr tks fy[kh xbZ gS] blds iwoZ ifjoknh ls dksbZ dkj.k i`PNk ugha iwNh xbZ vkSj ugh dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k izkIr fd;k x;k tks ljdkjh fu;e ds foifjr gSA 18-02-06 dks iqu% ekuuh; eqf[k;k dh v/;{krk esa cSBd gqbZ Fkh fd izkFkfed fo/kky; lSnkiqj&xksoklk esa nwljs iapk;r f’k{kkfe= dk fu;kstu fd;k tk;] blh vk/kkj ij fnukad 25-02-06 dks lq[k&lqfo/kk lfefr dh cSBd gqbZ ftlesa iapk;r f’k{kkfe= ds in ij fu;kstu djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k vkSj Jh izse izdk’k dqekj dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k] tgk¡ rd Jh deys’k dqekj ds laca/k esa f}rh; vof/k foLrkj fd;k x;k gS mlesa Qjojh 05 esa gh vgZrk esa baVj vafdr gS tcfd Jh deys’k dqekj o"kZ 05 esa baVj dh ijh{kk mrh.kZ gq;s gSa ftldk ijh{kkQy twu 05 esa izdkf’kr gqvk gS vkSj Js.kh r`rh; oxZ ls mrh.kZ gSA xzke iapk;r ds }kjk 10-02-06 dks gh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd Jh deys’k dqekj baVj dh ijh{kk esa r`rh; Js.kh ls mrh.kZ gS blfy, bUgsa iapk;r f’k{kkfe= ds in ls dk;Z eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA bl vk’k; dk vkns’k ljdkj dk Hkh iwoZ esa Fkk fd iapk;r f’k{kkfe=ksa dh vgZrk baVj dh gks vkSj 45 % ls de vad ugh gksuk pkfg,A blds ckn ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo ds }kjk fuxZr ladYi la[;k 2517 fnukad 04-07-08 ds }kjk bl Patna High Court LPA No.1020 of 2016 dt.13-09-2017 6/9 laca/k esa Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd iwoZ ls dk;Zjr iapk;r f’k{kkfe=ksa dks baVj esa vxj 45 % ls Hkh de vad izkIr gS rks mUgsa lsok esa ekuk tk;sxk vxj fu;ktu bZdkbZ ds }kjk lsok ls eqDr dj fn;s x;s gSa ] rc Hkh lsok eqfDr dh frfFk ls vudh lsok fofu;fer ekuh tk;sxh] ;g foHkkxh; vkns’k Jh deys’k dqekj ij ykxw gksrk gSA” 6. Mr. Mr. Singh has drawn our attention to Annexure-4 and submitted that a plain reading of Annexure-4 would indicate that in a fraudulent manner interpolation was made in Annexure-4 so far as Agenda No. 4 is concerned. He submitted that the requirement of 45% marks in Intermediate was subsequently done away by the resolution of the Government contained in Resolution No. 2517 dated 4.7.2008 whereby it was clarified that those who are working from before as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and if he has acquired even less than 45% and if he has been terminated on account of securing less than 45% marks he should be regularized in service notwithstanding the termination and in that view of the matter the respondent no. 8 could not have been terminated. 7. Mr. Singh submitted that in the instant case fraud was practiced to accommodate the present writ petitioner-appellant and to oust the respondent No. 8 as the writ-petitioner was the son of the then Mukhiya. He has drawn our attention to Annexure-R/6 to demonstrate that the writ petitioner-appellant was working as Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Bahalpur and in order to accommodate him in the school at Shaidpur Gowasa interpolation was made at the instance of the father of the writ petitioner-appellant who was the then Mukhiya. 8. From perusal of the documents contained in Annexures R-1, R-2, R-3, R-6 and R-6/1 it appears that the Respondent No. 8 was continuing in the school at Shaidpur Gowasa whereas the appellant-writ petitioner was working as Panchayat Shikshak in primary school, Bahalpur. From the order sheet of the case No. 252/2010, it appears that the District Teachers Employment Appellate authority has examined the Headmaster of the school, Saidpur who submitted that the respondent no. 8 right from the date of his initial employment, is regularly working in the school in question. The order sheets dated 7.8.2010 and 20.8.2010 are also indicative of the fact that interpolation was made in the proceeding of the Sukh-Subidha Samiti and the appellant’s name was inserted. 9. 8 right from the date of his initial employment, is regularly working in the school in question. The order sheets dated 7.8.2010 and 20.8.2010 are also indicative of the fact that interpolation was made in the proceeding of the Sukh-Subidha Samiti and the appellant’s name was inserted. 9. From the order sheet of the appellate authority it appears that it has gone into various aspects of the matter and on consideration of the evidence including the relevant documents and records, has decided the case in favour of the respondent No. 8 and the Writ Court on perusal of the well discussed order of the appellate authority including the order sheet of the proceeding in Case No. 252 of 2010, dismissed the writ application. 10. In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances discussed above and in view of the undisputed fact that the respondent no. 8 could not have been terminated on account of non-securing 45% marks in the Intermediate coupled with the fact that no show cause notice was issued before alleged termination which was in fact not acted upon, as he continued to work on the post of Shiksha Mitra on the cut off date 1.7.2006 and even thereafter. The most important aspect is that there was interpolation in Annexure-4 which renders the whole exercise of inclusion of the petitioner-appellant as Shiksha Mitra in place of respondent No. 8 under serious cloud, firstly, there was interpolation in Annexure-4 and secondly at the relevant time the father of the petitioner-appellant was Mukhiya and in that view of the matter and the attending fact situation renders the entire action of ouster of Respondent No. 8 and inclusion of Appellant in his place as result of acts of interpolation. 11. The submission of Mr. Shahi with reference to the judgments reported in 2014(2) PLJR 665 , 2011 (4) PLJR 2097, and the order dated 27.7.2017 in LPA No. 74 of 2015 is of no avail. It is now well settled that fraud vitiates all decision as has been held in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 is clinching on the point:- "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is now well settled that fraud vitiates all decision as has been held in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 is clinching on the point:- "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.” 12. In view of the discussions made above, we find no merit in the case of the writ petitioner-appellant. From perusal of the order of the appellate authority and the Writ Court we find that there is no error warranting interference in this intra court appeal. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.