JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the letter dated 04.05.2007, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appointment for the post of Constable against the Advertisement No.01/2004 has been rejected, on the basis of enquiry report/findings given by the respondent no.4 and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the said post. 2. The brief facts, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that in pursuance to Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 applications were invited for appointment for the post of Constable in Jharkhand Police Force and the petitioner being eligible applied for the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for participation in the selection process, involving verification of academic certificate and physical test, wherein he passed all the tests. Thereafter, the height of the petitioner was measured but the height of the petitioner was recorded less than the actual height, which is 175.5 c.m. The petitioner having come to know that his name did not figure in the final selection list due to lesser height, submitted representation to the respondents, requesting therein for correction of measurement of his height or for remeasurement. Since the representation filed by the petitioner was not disposed of, he moved this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.48 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2007 with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order. In pursuance to order dated 15.01.2007, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent no.3 on 19.02.2007, vide Annexure-3, whereupon, a Board was constituted presided over by D.I.G, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi for re-measurement of the height of the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Board on 22.03.2007 for re-measurement. On 22.03.2007 he along with four others appeared before the Board and their heights were re-measured and after measurement, the Board found that the height of the petitioner is 176.0 c.m. The petitioner was given total marks of 17, collectively both for his physical fitness and academic records, which was the cut off marks for selection. On 22.03.2007 he along with four others appeared before the Board and their heights were re-measured and after measurement, the Board found that the height of the petitioner is 176.0 c.m. The petitioner was given total marks of 17, collectively both for his physical fitness and academic records, which was the cut off marks for selection. But, it has been alleged that his handwriting/signature was not matching with the application form. In such view of the matter, the petitioner was declared not fit for selection and his case was not considered for appointment and a report was asked for from the respondent no. 5. Being aggrieved by non-consideration of his candidature for appointment, the petitioner filed W.P (S) No. 4228 of 2007 before this Court for quashing of the order dated 04.04.2007 vide Annexure-5 and during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents produced the impugned order of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on 04.05.2007. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2007 the petitioner submitted representation before the concerned respondent on 22.05.2007 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, but it did not evoke any response, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the ground of dissimilarity in the handwriting/ signature of the petitioner has been raised belatedly, not at the first instance, when the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of lesser height. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents smacks of arbitrary exercise of power being actuated by mala fide, thereby violating Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3. In the counter affidavit, it has been inter alia submitted that in the light of order dated 15.01.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.48 of 2007 a committee was constituted including the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur, Range, Ranchi as its Chairman. In course of re-measurement, height of the petitioner was measured 176 cm. But the committee found that the signature of the petitioner made before the re-measurement committee does not tally with that of put in original application form. In course of re-measurement, height of the petitioner was measured 176 cm. But the committee found that the signature of the petitioner made before the re-measurement committee does not tally with that of put in original application form. Besides, his photograph which was attached with that application form also not matched with the person appears before the Committee for his re-measurement and the difference in the height of the petitioner created suspicion in the mind of the committee and, therefore, the Committee sent the sample of handwriting of the petitioner taken vide memo dated 24.03.2007 to the respondent no.3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coalfield Range, Bokaro sent the sample of handwriting of the petitioner with his application form to the C.I.D, West Bengal for examination. The Questioned Document Examination Bureau, C.I.D., Kolkata in its report said that during side by side examination and comparison of the specimen signature and writing with the disputed signature is of different classes. The difference signifies the individual’s writing characteristics. Hence, candidature of the petitioner was rejected on these varying facts, vide letter dated 04.05.2007 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition and the said letter issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coalfield Range, Bokaro is self explanatory. It has further been submitted that though the height of the petitioner was found to be 176 cms but it is also a fact that his signature, which was put before the re-measurement committee, does not tally with those on the original application form which was proved on examination by the Questioned Document Examination Bureau, C.I.D, Kolkata, vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 5. Supplementary counter affidavit dated 27.08.2015 on behalf of Additional Director General, Special Branch, Jharkhand has been filed. It has been stated therein that the application itself contained the verification column to the effect that the information so furnished by the candidate had been true and naturally it is implied that the same has to be written and signed by the candidate. It clearly appears that the present petitioner, who is claiming himself to be Raja Pratap Singh, had neither filled up the application form nor even the photograph pasted on it had been of the petitioner and hence a clear cut case of impersonation had been detected. 6. It clearly appears that the present petitioner, who is claiming himself to be Raja Pratap Singh, had neither filled up the application form nor even the photograph pasted on it had been of the petitioner and hence a clear cut case of impersonation had been detected. 6. Learned counsel for the State has strenuously submitted that dissimilarity in the signature and photograph of the petitioner with that of the application form, a clear-cut case of impersonation is made out and he cannot be made beneficiary of such illegal act. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions on the pleadings, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that the ground of dispute, as has been raised by the respondents is the alleged dissimilarity in the signature and photographs with that of the application form and that was the sole reason for not considering the candidature for appointment to the post of Constable. Besides this, his photograph which was attached with that application form, also not matched with the person appeared before the Committee for re-measurement and the difference in the height of the petitioner created suspicion in the mind of the committee and that was the reason for which the Committee sent the sample of handwriting of the petitioner to the respondent no. 3. Whereupon, the expert opinion was obtained from the Bureau, which in unequivocal term has opined that the person who has written/signed the specimen writings and signature had not signed the disputed writing and signature. This fact clearly speaks that person who has signed and verified the application form is different from the person who appeared before the Board on the date of remeasurement and by misrepresenting the facts and playing fraud or impersonation; which though was detected at a later stage, petitioner cannot stake his claim for appointment. 8. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others as reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph 13 has held 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. 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.” Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Ors as reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a person having obtained appointment by playing fraud is not entitled to invoke equitable jurisdiction to claim such a relief. 9. On cumulative effect of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 04.05.2007, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable against the Advertisement No.01/2004 has been rejected basing on findings recorded by enquiry officer, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.