JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika in the newly created Centre at Bengdubbi, Naya Basti, Sahebganj in place of respondent no. 8 and further prayer has been made to set aside the appointment of respondent no. 8 on the ground that her appointment was made on the basis of forged documents. 2. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Singh J.C to learned G.P. IV and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 8. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for appointment on the post in question, meeting of Gram Sabha was convened on 24.08.2009, however due to some objection raised by some members of Gram Sabha regarding nutrition areas the meeting dated 24.08.2009 was cancelled and next meeting was held on 29.08.2009, in which, the petitioner along with respondent no. 8 participated, but later on the petitioner came to know that respondent no. 8 has been selected and petitioner has been placed at serial no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in the meeting dated 29.08.2009 oral declaration was given by the authorities that petitioner has been found suitable for the post in question and she would shortly receive the offer of appointment but respondent no. 8 was given appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted with vehemence that immediately after coming to know about the selection of respondent no. 8, the petitioner represented before the respondents regarding the false and fabricated educational documents submitted by respondent no. 8 before Gram Sabha, basing on which she was selected, but, it did not evoke any response, hence, the petitioner moved before this Hon’ble Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Referring to counter affidavit filed by the respondents-State, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the counter affidavit, though the respondents have admitted that documents submitted by respondent no. 8 were forged and fabricated but her appointment has not been cancelled for the reasons best known to the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit submitted that after selection of respondent no. 8 were forged and fabricated but her appointment has not been cancelled for the reasons best known to the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit submitted that after selection of respondent no. 8, her documents were sent for verification, whereupon it was found that the same were forged and fabricated. 6. On the specific query put forth by this Court, that even knowing the fact the respondent no. 8 obtained employment on the basis of forged documents, why no appropriate action was taken in accordance with law, it was replied that as the matter was pending before this Court, so the departmental authorities are waiting for the final outcome of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 8, despite being given opportunity to file counter affidavit did not file any affidavit and today, on instruction submits that after following due procedure of appointment, she was appointed and she is still continuing on the post. 8. After giving my anxious consideration to the pleadings available on record, it appears that appointment of respondent no. 8 was made on basis of forged documents, which certainly swapped away the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment on the post in question. It is settled principles of law that fraud vitiates everything and admittedly the respondent no. 8 has been found the beneficiaries of appointment on the basis of forged documents, though the same was detected at later stage. 9. So far as fraud in appointment is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others as reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 has at paragraph nos. 13 as under:- “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: (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.” 10. “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.” 10. As a logical sequitur to the facts, reasons and discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs and conclusions arrived at by this Court, the respondents are directed to take appropriate decision/action with regard to appointment of respondent no. 8 within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and further take decision with regard to appointment of petitioner in place of respondent no. 8, after verifying the documents, in accordance with rules, within a period of four weeks’ thereafter. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.