JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Common issues are involved in both these writ petitions, hence they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the captioned writ applications, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider their case for appointment on the post of police constable, as they come within the zone of consideration having qualified all events and declared successful. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that because of some dispute with respect to selection of the candidates for the post of 'Constable' in four districts; Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih; the matter was inquired into and report was prepared wherein 932 candidates were found to be beneficiaries of malpractices by making over-writing etc. in master chart and petitioners name find place in those 932 candidates; hence, they have rightly been denied appointment. It has further been submitted that denial of appointment of those 932 candidates, who have applied for the posts of constable vide advertisement no. 01/2004 being the beneficiaries of malpractice; has also been upheld by the decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. 4. On perusal of the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I). Admittedly, the petitioners were found beneficiaries of malpractices among the 932 candidates, though the manipulation was detected at later stage, but, it is settled principle of law that fraud vitiates everything and 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. 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.” Hence, the manipulation/interpolation though detected at a later stage, the petitioners cannot be given benefit of manipulation. (ii).Furthermore, it is a settled principles of law that inclusion of name in the merit list does not give any indefeasible right to appointment as enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India as reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 . 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I am of the opinion that the writ applications do not warrant any interference by this Court and the same are accordingly dismissed, being devoid of any merit.