Judgment Sanjeev Kumar J.—Shazia Hassan, who was writ petitioner before the Writ Court is in appeal against the judgment dated 15th of November, 2017 passed in SWP No.64/2016, whereby the Writ Court has found no merit in her petition and has, accordingly, dismissed it. 2. Impugned judgment is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the appointment of the appellant has been cancelled by the SKIMS authorities in violation of the principles of natural justice and without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the respondent SKIMS authorities did not follow the notified criteria and made the selection purely on the basis of academic merit and without conducting any viva voce. The impugned judgment is also assailed on the ground that the Writ Court has not taken into consideration the contradictory stand taken by the State Board of School Education with regard to the genuineness of matriculation and 12th class marks certificates of the appellant and has thus erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had obtained appointment by submitting fake documents. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and the judgment impugned suffers from no infirmity. As is apparent from the pleadings and the documents on record, it is a clear case of fraud having been practiced by the appellant for obtaining appointment in SKIMS. The tampering in the marks card is not very emphatically disputed by the appellant but the stand taken is that the respondent Nos.7 and 8, who had scanned certificates of the appellant and filled up her application form, did the mischief and tampered with her marks card. The Writ Court after due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the reply affidavit filed by the respondents came to the conclusion that the appellant had obtained the appointment on the basis of fake certificates. 4. It may be worthwhile to notice that the appointment of the appellant was subject to verification of academic qualification/category certificates from the concerned authorities. 4. It may be worthwhile to notice that the appointment of the appellant was subject to verification of academic qualification/category certificates from the concerned authorities. The respondents immediately after offering appointment to the appellant took up the matter with the State Board of School Education for verification of the qualification certificates submitted by her and found that there was clear tampering in the marks cards of 10th and 12th class and the marks had been inflated so as to get favourable treatment in the selection. As is claimed by the appellant, on the basis of qualification certificates scanned along with the application form, the appellant had obtained 450 marks in 10th class and 490 marks in 12th class but on verification from the State Board of School Education, it was found that the appellant had actually obtained 212 marks in 10th class and 315 marks in 12th class and, therefore, had succeeded in getting the appointment by sheer misrepresentation and fraud. Taking note of the aforesaid factual position, the Writ Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision of the SKIMS with regard to cancellation of appointment of the appellant in terms of the order impugned in the writ petition. 5. We find no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appointment of the appellant was provisional and subject to verification of her credentials including the qualification certificates and, therefore, no enquiry or compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India was required for cancellation of appointment on finding that the qualification certificates submitted by the appellant were fake and tampered. Needless to say, that “fraud and collusion vitiates even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury”. This has been so said by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. M/S. Shaw Brothers, (1992) 1 SCC 534 . 6. It is thus well established that fraud and justice cannot dwell together. Fraud is an anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by application of equitable doctrine including res judicata {Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 319 )}. 7. In view of aforesaid, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Krishan Yadav vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 165 is not well placed. The appellant having participated in the selection process and being beneficiary thereof cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the selection on the ground that the selection has been made by the respondent Institute without holding any interview as was notified earlier. 8. For the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM.