ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 11.03.2022 (Annex.15 in both the petitions), wherein it was observed that based on the order dated 21.10.1993 whereby petitioners were dismissed from the service, the petitioners were not in service. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petitions that the petitioners were appointed as Teacher Grade-III Level-2 by order dated 15.11.1989 and their services came to be confirmed by order dated 12.11.1992, however, on account of the fact that recognition granted by the State regarding petitioners’ qualification came to be withdrawn, the services of the petitioners came to be terminated by order dated 21.10.1993. 3. Aggrieved against the orders dated 21.10.1993, the petitioners preferred writ petition being CWP No.631/1994, wherein initially an interim order was granted by the Court, however, the petition came to be dismissed on 30.08.1995. Against the order dated 30.08.1995, the petitioners preferred intra-court appeal being DBSAW No.685/1995, which appeal also came to be dismissed by order dated 03.11.2004. The review petition filed was also dismissed and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the petitioners also came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, despite dismissal of the writ petition, special appeal, review petition and the SLP, the petitioners continued in the service apparently on account of the fact that the interim order was granted in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. 4. It is claimed that during the period the petitioners were in the service, they obtained qualification of B. Ed. from Kota Open University and Mahrishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and are now qualified. The petitioners were not granted annual grade increments and other service benefits and as such, they submitted a representation dated 10.07.2012 for grant of service benefits. 5. Submissions have been made that as the petitioners have obtained the qualification and have continued in the service, they were entitled to get benefit of regularization in the service with consequential benefits as was granted by this Court in Vinod Kumar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5850/1993 decided on 20.07.2004, which was followed in Ladhoo Ram vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3029/1998 decided on 05.08.2005. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5850/1993 decided on 20.07.2004, which was followed in Ladhoo Ram vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3029/1998 decided on 05.08.2005. The petitioners filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8814/2021 seeking all the service benefits as they were getting fixed salary of Rs.20,000/- per month only, wherein the respondent State sought time to file reply. 6. After filing of the writ petition, notice dated 07.03.2022 came to be issued to the petitioners calling upon them to clarify on the aspects that despite dismissal of their petition, special appeal and SLP under which valid order they were in the service and were getting the emoluments and why information about the dismissal of the petition was not provided to the Department. The order of dismissal was effective on account of final orders passed by the High Court and therefore, they must provide their explanation by 11.03.2022. The explanation was given by the petitioners, inter-alia, claiming that as the petitioners were in service for last more than thirty years and have subsequently obtained the necessary qualification and that one Vinod Kumar was granted benefit of regularization, who was similarly situated, they were entitled to be regularized with continuity in the service. Further, the Department was duly represented before the Court and as such, there was no reason to inform about the dismissal of the writ petition and special appeal. 7. By order dated 11.03.2022 (Annex.15) noticing the above fact, the competent authority came to the conclusion that on account of dismissal of the writ petition and special appeal, the dismissal from the service of the petitioners is effective and they were no more in the service. 8. 7. By order dated 11.03.2022 (Annex.15) noticing the above fact, the competent authority came to the conclusion that on account of dismissal of the writ petition and special appeal, the dismissal from the service of the petitioners is effective and they were no more in the service. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that despite the fact that against the dismissal order of the petitioners passed in the year 1993, the writ petition came to be dismissed in the year 1995, special appeal came to be dismissed in the year 2004 and the SLP was also dismissed, as the petitioners have continued in the service, though on fixed emoluments, and during the said period, they have obtained the requisite qualification, the action of the respondents in noticing the termination of their service on account of order of dismissal passed in the year 1993, after thirty long years, is not justified and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed on the orders in the case of Vinod Kumar (Annex.11) and Ladhoo Ram (Annex.12). 9. The facts, which are not in dispute, wherein the petitioners were accorded appointment based on the degree possessed by them, which in fact were fake, the petitioners came to be dismissed from the service by order dated 21.10.1993, against which CWP No.631/1994 was filed, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that no indulgence can be granted to the persons to perpetuate the fraud and illegality. The Court also noticed that mere allowing to pursue the B. Ed. Course, will not give any right to the petitioners to continue in the service and consequently dismissed the writ petition. The special appeal filed by the petitioners came to be rejected on 03.11.2004, wherein it was inter-alia observed by the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal, as under: “Admittedly, the degree on the basis of which appointment was given, was fake and, therefore, his appointment as given was void, when made. B. Ed. degree obtained later cannot possibly make the appointment legitimate.” 10. The SLP filed by the petitioners also came to be rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.11.2005 (Annex.7). B. Ed. degree obtained later cannot possibly make the appointment legitimate.” 10. The SLP filed by the petitioners also came to be rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.11.2005 (Annex.7). From the above facts, it is more than apparent that insofar as dismissal of the petitioners from the service on account of fake degrees is concerned, the same attained finality and while deciding the aspect of dismissal, the fact that the petitioners had obtained B. Ed. degree during pendency of the litigation, was also noticed, however, the Courts specifically came to the conclusion that said aspect was of no avail. 11. It appears that on account of interim order granted by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the petitioners despite dismissal, continued in the service and even when the writ petition came to be dismissed and apparently no interim order was granted by the Division Bench, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the State/the same did not come to the notice of the State and the petitioners continued to serve. However, despite the fact that they continued to serve for all these years, they were not accorded any of the service benefits like regular pay scales, increment etc. and therefore, they for the first time in the year 2012 made a representation. A perusal of the representation (Annex.10) would reveal that the petitioners though made reference of their dismissal and the fact that they had filed writ petition and were re-appointed on account of interim order, they did not make any reference to the fact of dismissal of the writ petition, special appeal and the SLP and claimed that they were working for long and therefore, they be accorded the service benefits, which aspect apparently remained pending. However, when the petitioners filed writ petition before this Court seeking service benefits for having served for all these years, the fact of their working with the Department on fixed salary despite the fact that their dismissal had been upheld by the learned Single Judge, Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the action was taken by the respondents which resulting in passing of the order impugned, wherein the fact of services of the petitioners having come to end in the year 1993 was noticed. 12. 12. The submission made that as the petitioners have worked for all these years and therefore, the action of the respondents in implementing the order of dismissal passed in the year 1993 is not justified, cannot be countenanced under any circumstance. Once the challenge laid to the order of dismissal has already been negated by this Court, which order has been upheld by the Division Bench and the SLP against the said order has been rejected and during the course of consideration by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, the fact of petitioners having obtained the requisite qualification, have already been noticed and indulgence refused to be granted, the said relief by this Court at this stage is wholly impermissible, inasmuch as granting of relief as prayed for, would amount now to set aside the orders of dismissal passed in the year 1993, which orders have already been upheld in the writ petition filed by the petitioners right up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The fact that despite dismissal of the writ petition and no interim order having been granted by the Division Bench, the petitioners continued to serve, cannot be a reason enough to accord indulgence to the petitioners, as the same would amount to allowing a premium over the wrong doing of the petitioners in suppressing the fact of dismissal of the writ petition and the special appeal. The conduct of the petitioners of suppression is very well established from the representation made by them in the year 2012 (Annex.10), wherein they have very conveniently relied on the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting interim order, based on which, they were taken back in the service despite dismissal and thereafter have very conveniently and surreptitiously not mentioned the fact that writ petition came to be dismissed and the order was upheld by the Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. So far as the orders in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) and Ladhoo Ram (supra) are concerned, the same would have no application to the facts of the present case, as in those cases, the writ petition filed by them were not dismissed and the orders were not upheld by the Division Bench, when the Court granted indulgence to them. The said aspect has been fairly conceded by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, which aspect has been noticed in the order sheet dated 06.04.2022 by this Court. 15. In view of above discussion, looking to the circumstances of the case, wherein the challenge laid to the dismissal of the petitioners already stands rejected by this Court, the special appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge having been dismissed and the SLP rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the suppression on the part of the petitioners of the said aspect from the respondents, is writ large on record and the petitioners continuing to serve the respondents with a fixed salary of Rs.20,000/-, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 16. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are therefore, dismissed.