ORDER : I.A. No. 2952 of 2021 The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 70 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2952 of 2021 is allowed and delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 288 of 2020 5. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the order/judgment dated 11.11.2019 passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1730 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the order dated 20.02.2019, by which show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and others for getting appointment on the strength of forged certificate, was quashed and set aside and appellant- State of Jharakhand was directed to pay the entire retiral benefits to the petitioners within a stipulated period of time. 6. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated reads as hereunder: In pursuant to an advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioner having the requisite qualifications, had applied and on being declared successful in the recruitment process joined the said post on 15.09.1980. It is stated that after joining, the educational certificates of the petitioner were verified and two months thereafter, he started to get his salary. During his service period, the petitioner was transferred to different places. But, all of a sudden, before four months prior to his superannuation, i.e. on 30.01.2017 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih that in course of verification of the educational certificates, the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna had sent letter dated 19.11.2016 that Roll Code 1440 was not used in the examination of the year 1974(A) and as such, it is forged, therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within a week. Again on 03.04.2017, petitioner was asked to submit reply to show-cause notice dated 30.01.2017. Again on 03.04.2017, petitioner was asked to submit reply to show-cause notice dated 30.01.2017. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply categorically stating that educational certificate of the petitioner is genuine and correct and requested the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih to enquire the same from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and thereafter, the retiral benefits may be given to the petitioner. It is stated that the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna had sent a letter to the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih on 21.09.2017, wherein he has written that due to inadvertence, wrong verification report was sent and when he made an enquiry, found the following facts: “Candidate Name – Dhapru Rai, Roll Code-1440, Roll No. 326, Year 1974 (A), Marks obtained-533, Division-Second .” It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of the report from Bihar School Examination Board, the appellants-State did not make payment of the retiral benefits as a result of which, the petitioner is facing financial hardship. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “For issuing direction to the respondents to pay retiral benefits of the petitioner such as Provident fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc. as well Pension and other legally payable amount of retiral benefits to the petitioner and further direction upon the respondents not to take coercive action against the petitioner on the basis of letter issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih dated 20.02.2019.” The respondents-State of Jharkhand appeared and filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that petitioner obtained employment by means of false and fabricated matriculation certificate and the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 20.02.2019 resolved to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. It was also resolved to file an F.I.R. against the petitioner and others for submitting false and fabricated certificate for getting the employment and further resolved to recover the salary from the erring employees. On the issue of maintainability, it was submitted that the petitioner approached this Court without availing the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh under Teachers Appointment Rules, 1994 against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. Submission was made that on the strength of aforesaid fact, the writ petition may be dismissed. On the issue of maintainability, it was submitted that the petitioner approached this Court without availing the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh under Teachers Appointment Rules, 1994 against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. Submission was made that on the strength of aforesaid fact, the writ petition may be dismissed. The learned Single Judge, on appreciating the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition by quashing order dated 20.02.2019, by which show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and others for getting appointment on the strength of forged certificate and directed to pay the entire retiral benefits to the petitioners, against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed on the basis of forged matriculation certificate as such his initial appointment itself is nullity in the eyes of law and to that effect show cause notice was served upon the petitioner stating that after enquiry the allegation of submission of forged educational certificate has been found to be correct, as such it has been decided to lodge an F.I.R. to that effect and order for recovery of salary etc. was passed, to which the writ petitioner replied, which was found not satisfactory. But the learned Single Judge only considering the fact that the petitioner had rendered 37 years of long service allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to pay the retiral benefits, which needs interference by this Court. It has further been submitted that once appointment of the writ petitioner has been found to illegal since the writ petitioner was appointed on the strength of forged and fabricated matriculation certificate, there is no reason to show any compassion to the writ petitioner merely on the ground that he has rendered 37 years of service and on that ground alone, the learned Single Judge has passed order, which requires interference by this Court. 8. On the other hand, Mr. 8. On the other hand, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by learned Single Judge since consideration has been made of rendering of 37 years of long service and further show cause has been served upon the petitioner after superannuation from service and considering these aspects of the matter the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order, the same cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 9. Refuting the contention made on behalf of State-appellant that the writ petitioner was appointed on the basis of forged matriculation certificate, it has been submitted that Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna (in short ‘Board’) vide its letter dated 21st September, 2017 addressed to the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih has stated that due to inadvertence wrong verification report was submitted in its earlier letter issued by the Board vide letter no. 6444 dated 19.11.2016, however, on enquiry it is found that the certificate of the petitioner is genuine one. But even though twice the enquiry was conducted with regard to educational certificate of the petitioner and was found to be genuine, the respondents again issued show cause notice on 20.02.2019 mentioning the fact that Roll Code 1440, relating to the petitioner’s certificate, was not used in examination as also directed to lodge FIR against the petitioner and did not disburse the retiral benefits. It has further been submitted the decision of the Board itself is contradictory and, therefore, merely by taking the stand that the writ petitioner was never appointed based upon such matriculation certificate it cannot be said to be sufficient ground to come to such finding without considering the subsequent finding given by the Board regarding the matriculation certificate of the Board to that effect wherein the report which was furnished to the concerned DSE has been corroborated. Learned senior counsel in the backdrop of these facts as also on the ground that writ petitioner has rendered 37 years of service submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference by this Court. 10. To buttress his argument, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshni Devi & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors [ (1998) 8 SCC 59 ]; Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors Vs. 10. To buttress his argument, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshni Devi & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors [ (1998) 8 SCC 59 ]; Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors [ (2013) 14 SCC 494 ]; as also judgment passed by Patna High Court in Surajmal Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors in CWJC No. 5982 of 2009 dated 13.05.2009; Kabir Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors in CWJC No. 9105 of 2005 dated 8.8.2008 wherein the Court has held that after rendering long length of service the decision to terminate or any adverse decision if taken will be said to be illegal on the ground that such decision ought to have been taken at threshold and not after rendering substantial period of service. 11. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel waived notice on behalf of respondents-State of Bihar and represented Bihar School Examination Board and referring to the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna dated 09.02.2022, it has been submitted that vide contention of the writ petitioner that he passed 1974(A) Matriculation Examination under Roll Code 1440, Roll No. 326 obtaining marks 533 i.e. Second Division has been found to be incorrect as per the records of the Board, as such decision of the administrative authority holding appointment of the petitioner nullity in the eyes law cannot be said to suffer from error. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge. 13. The undisputed fact, in this case, is that the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 5th September, 1980 and while working as such retired from service on 31st May, 2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. However, prior to his superannuation, question was raised about the veracity of the educational certificate of the petitioner. On being questioned, the educational certificates of the petitioner and others were sent for verification by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih before vigilance Cell of BSEB, Patna, who vide its letter dated 07.02.2019 submitted report stating that Roll Code 1440(A), which relates to petitioner was not used by the Board in the relevant year. On being questioned, the educational certificates of the petitioner and others were sent for verification by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih before vigilance Cell of BSEB, Patna, who vide its letter dated 07.02.2019 submitted report stating that Roll Code 1440(A), which relates to petitioner was not used by the Board in the relevant year. Based upon such report, show cause notice was served upon the petitioner stating therein that the educational certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be forged one as such decision has been taken to lodge FIR against him and to recover salary drawn by him. But by that time, the petitioner was superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation, however, the respondents-authorities based upon the reply furnished by the petitioner as also the report furnished by the Board and decision of the District Establishment Committee, based upon which show cause was issued upon the petitioner, hold the payment of retiral benefit of the petitioner. Aggrieved, thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1730 of 2019 taking the plea that withholding of retiral benefit after serving 37 years of service cannot be said to justified decision. The learned Single Judge being satisfied with the ground agitated on behalf of petitioner has allowed the writ petition, against which, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 14. The appellant-State has taken the ground that the very basis of the appointment since was based on the matriculation certificate but on enquiry it was found that the petitioner has never appeared in the matriculation examination duly conducted by the Board in the relevant year. Therefore, according to appellant- State since the very basis of appointment i.e., matriculation examination itself has been found to be improper/illegal, the respondents-authorities have taken correct decision by issuing show cause notice to explain as to why appropriate action be not taken against him since he had submitted forged educational certificate for obtaining employment. 15. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted such decision after rendering of 37 years of service cannot be taken and considering that aspect of the matter since the learned Single Judge has passed positive direction upon the respondents to disburse the retiral benefit, which cannot be suffer from an error. 15. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted such decision after rendering of 37 years of service cannot be taken and considering that aspect of the matter since the learned Single Judge has passed positive direction upon the respondents to disburse the retiral benefit, which cannot be suffer from an error. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment rendered in Roshni Devi & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors [ (1998) 8 SCC 59 ]; Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors [ (2013) 14 SCC 494 ]; as also judgment passed by Patna High Court in Surajmal Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors in CWJC No. 5982 of 2009 dated 13.05.2009; Kabir Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors in CWJC No. 9105 of 2005 dated 8.8.2008. 16. We have considered the aforesaid judgment. The first one, upon which, much emphasis has been laid down by learned counsel for the petitioner is the judgment rendered in Roshni Devi & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (supra). We have gone across the factual aspect and found therefrom that the fact involved therein is of filling up of vacancy beyond the notified vacancies and some of the candidates were higher in merit but did not get appointment filed writ petition which was decided under the cause title Sudesh Kumari v. State of Haryana. The High Court in that case found that the last candidate appointed out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 was at serial no. 4645 and therefore directed the respondent-State to appoint all those who were higher in merit. The State Government did not challenge validity of the decision in Sudesh Kumari case. Later on, another writ petition was filed in which validity of list prepared on 15.10.1989 was challenged, inter alia on the ground that candidates included in the list were far in excess of reported vacancies and that the list could not be put to use after prescribed period of its validity, i.e., one year. The Full Bench of the High Court gave certain directions (para 4 of the judgment) which had the effect of virtually abrogating reliefs given in Sudesh Kumar Case and annulling the appointments made pursuant thereto. Persons who were adversely affected by the Full Bench directions were appellants before the Supreme Court. The Full Bench of the High Court gave certain directions (para 4 of the judgment) which had the effect of virtually abrogating reliefs given in Sudesh Kumar Case and annulling the appointments made pursuant thereto. Persons who were adversely affected by the Full Bench directions were appellants before the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid backdrop, held that respondent-State did not challenge validity of Sudesh Kumari Case and therefore directions given therein should normally have been allowed to be implemented but in view of the illegality and irregularities perpetrated by this judgment and in view of the enormity of impact which the judgment would have on the future generation of candidates aspiring for a job, the directions given by the Full Bench have to be modified. While modifying those directions and replacing them with fresh directions, it has to be kept in view that persons who have been appointed out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 have already served for more than 9 years and equity is in their favour. 17. The reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered in Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors (supra). This Court has also gone through the factual aspect of the said case and found therefrom that in pursuance to an advertisement by which applications were invited for recruitment of 380 Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Sub-Inspectors in the respondent-State. For the said purpose preliminary examination was conducted and the successful candidates were called for in the Main examination which was held in two parts-Paper I and Paper II and after conducting the physical examination and personal interviews, the final merit list of candidates was published whereby all the appellants herein were selected. Based on the said merit list the appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates including the appellants on various dates. In the meanwhile, the Inspector General of Police and the respondent Board received complaints in respect of defects/mistakes in several questions of the main examination papers. The respondent Board constituted an Expert Committee to inquire into the complaints. Upon examination of the two papers, two sets of defects were noticed: (a) eight questions in Paper II itself were incorrect; and (b) model answers for evaluation of answer scripts to another eight questions of Paper II were incorrect. The respondent Board constituted an Expert Committee to inquire into the complaints. Upon examination of the two papers, two sets of defects were noticed: (a) eight questions in Paper II itself were incorrect; and (b) model answers for evaluation of answer scripts to another eight questions of Paper II were incorrect. The respondent Board directed for deletion of the first set of eight questions in Paper II and preparation of correct model answers key for objective questions in Papers I and II and accordingly carried out re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. On 27-6-2009 a new revised merit list was published wherein the names of twenty-six appellants did not figure at all and accordingly, the appointment of the appellants were cancelled by the respondent State. In this background, when the matter travelled to the High Court, the Division Bench has passed upholding the order of cancellation of appointments of the appellants qua the first list and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. The matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the settled position of law that no legal right in respect of appointment of said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide. It has also been considered that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardising the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bona fide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment. For ready reference, paragraph nos. 22 to 24 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “22. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide. (See Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [ (1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766] , S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ] and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94].) It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardising the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bona fide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (see Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut [ (2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 606] ; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [ (2006) 1 SCC 667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190] ). 23. In Girjesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P [ (2010) 10 SCC 707 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 192], the High Court had invalidated the rule prescribing selection procedure which awarded grace marks of 25 per cent and age relaxation to the candidates with three years' long non-formal teaching experiences as a consequence of which several candidates appointed as teachers at the formal education institutions under the said rule stood ousted. This Court while concurring with the observations made by the High Court kept in view that upon rectification of irregularities in appointment after a considerable length of time an order for cancellation of appointment would severely affect economic security of a number of candidates and observed as follows : (SCC p. 714, para 31) “31. … Most of them were earlier teaching in non-formal education centres, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. … Most of them were earlier teaching in non-formal education centres, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three-year long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25%. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of the High Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the non-formal education centres, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families. Most of them are between the age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court.” Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed under the invalidated rule. 24. In Union of India v. Narendra Singh [ (2008) 2 SCC 750 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 547] this Court considered the age of the employee who was erroneously promoted and the duration of his service on the promoted post and the factor of retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation and observed as follows: (SCC p. 758, paras 35-36) “35. The last prayer on behalf of the respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much so that only few days have remained. He will be reaching the age of superannuation by the end of this month i.e. 31-12-2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. up to 31-12-2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. up to 31-12-2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the authorities was in accordance with statutory rules, an order passed by the Deputy Accountant General cancelling promotion of the respondent and reverting him to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and the respondent could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Functional) and his pensionary and retiral benefits would be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all throughout. 36. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e. 31-12-2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant (Functional) but as Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 18. Further, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, wherein, consideration has been made to the effect that if the petitioner was illegally appointed and sought to be contended which admittedly being a policy of appointment, if it was a policy of appointment why should petitioner suffer. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has considered that although the petitioner of the said writ petition was allowed to continue in service for a period of 27 years and subsequent thereto decision was taken to terminate as also withholding the salary which has been withheld i.e., 30th June, 2004 as also the reitral benefits but considering the fact that said petitioner has continued in service for 27 years but there is no action on the part of erring officer, therefore, decision taken by the authorities by holding the petitioner of the said not entitled for entire arrears of salary since the year 1990 till retirement i.e. 30th June, 2004 was quashed and set aside. 19. Mr. 19. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that herein the writ petitioner since has rendered 37 years of service, therefore, withholding of retiral benefits is absolutely illegal and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court since the learned Single Judge has passed the order after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter. 20. This Court, after going through the judgments upon which reliance has been placed, as quoted and referred hereinabove, has found therefrom more particularly the judgment rendered in Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors (supra) wherein as under paragraph 22 to 24, settled position of law has been reiterated that no legal right in respect of appointment of said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide. Further settled position of law has been reiterated that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardising the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. Further, it is evident from the judgment rendered in Roshni Devi & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (supra) that the factual aspect of the said case is different to that of case of Kabir Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (supra). 21. So far as the fact of the given case is concerned, this Court in order to verify as to whether the writ petitioner has passed matriculation examination and whether on the basis the same he had obtained service, passed order on 03.01.2022 impleading the respondent- BSEB as party-respondent in the appeal. For ready reference order dated 03.01.2022 passed by this Court is quoted hereunder as: “Notice upon the respondent. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent. The issue of limitation would be considered at the later stage. The moot question arisen in this appeal is as to whether the writ petitioner has passed matriculation examination and whether on the basis of the same he had obtained service? Whether Annexure-6 filed in the writ petition is correct or Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 is correct because both are seen eye to eye to each other? Whether Annexure-6 filed in the writ petition is correct or Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 is correct because both are seen eye to eye to each other? In such a situation, we are not left with any other option than to implead the Bihar School Examination Board through its Secretary as respondent no.4 in the array of the respondents. Ordered accordingly. Office is directed to make such impleadment on behalf of the appellants. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned Government Advocate appearing for State of Bihar who is present on the board informs that he represents Bihar School Examination Board and he waives notice on behalf of the newly added respondent no.4. Let him file a proper counter affidavit after due verification regarding passing of matriculation examination by the writ petitioner as well as the legality or otherwise of Annexure-6 to the writ petition as well as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. Let a copy of the writ petition along with counter affidavit and reply to the counter affidavit as well as memorandum of appeal be served upon Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the newly added respondent no.4, within two days by the learned counsel for the appellants. As prayed, put up this matter on 07.02.2022. In the meantime, proper counter affidavit should be filed on behalf of the newly added respondent no.4 after serving a copy of the same upon the writ petitioner as well as the State of Jharkhand well in advance.” Pursuant thereto, BSEB, Patna filed counter affidavit on 09.02.2022 wherein specific stand has been taken that the claim of the writ petitioner that he has passed 1974(A) Matriculation Examination from the Bihar School Examination Board has not been found to be supported by the records of the Board. The relevant paragraph 12 is quoted under as: “12.That in this regard from the relevant records at the Board the claim and contention of the writ petitioner namely Dhapru Rai that he passed 1974(A) Matriculation Examination under Roll Code 1440, Roll No. 326, obtaining 533 marks i.e., Second Division (As apparent from the averments made in writ petition) has not been found correct/supported, since from the records it is evident that the Roll Code 1440 had not been used in the said 1974(A) Matriculation Examination in question, therefore the claim of the writ petitioner that he has passed 1974(A) Matriculation Examination from the Bihar School Examination Board not been found to be supported by the records at the Board.” Answering the question framed by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2022, it has been stated at paragraph 13 as under: “That so far as the question as to Whether the Annexure-6 filed in the writ petition is correct or the Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 therein is correct it is humbly submitted that from the relevant records of the dispatch section of the it has been found that no such letter bearing letter no. 3491 dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure-6 of writ) has been issued from the office of the Board to the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, so far as the authenticity of the letter bearing no. Ni. 772 dated 10.05.2018 has been found to be issued from the office of the Board to the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, wherein it has correctly been mentioned that letter no. Ni. 6346 dated 25.01.2018, letter no. Ni. 454 dated 07.04.2017, letter no. Ni. 3491 dated 21.09.2017, letter no. Ni. 6444 dated 19.11.2016, letter no. 4756 dated 23.11.2017, letter no. Ni. 670 dated 03.02.2018 and letter no. 3938 dated 13.10.2017 had not been issued from the office of the Board.” It is, thus, evident that the Board, issuing authority of the matriculation certificate, has specifically come out with the plea that the writ petitioner has never participated in the matriculation examination. 22. 4756 dated 23.11.2017, letter no. Ni. 670 dated 03.02.2018 and letter no. 3938 dated 13.10.2017 had not been issued from the office of the Board.” It is, thus, evident that the Board, issuing authority of the matriculation certificate, has specifically come out with the plea that the writ petitioner has never participated in the matriculation examination. 22. The District Superintendent of Education has also filed affidavit in this appeal, wherein same plea has been taken, as has been stated by the Board and thereby justified the decision of the administrative authority that the appointment of the writ petitioner since is based upon forged matriculation certificate, his appointment is void ab initio as such the writ petitioner is not entitled to get retiral benefit. 23. However, the aforesaid contention has seriously been disputed on behalf of respondent-writ petitioner by taking the plea of issuance of communication under the Right to Information Act, as would appear from letter dated 21.09.2017 the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) has also the concerned authority of the district have taken the plea that such letters have been issued upon the writ petitioner is relying treating the appointment of the writ petitioner to be correct has been issued by the Vigilance Wing of the Board. Therefore, according to petitioner serious enquiry is required to be conducted for furnishing false information, if that be the fact as per the plea taken by the Board as also by the concerned DSE. 24. This Court before appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss about the settled position of law that what would be effect of appointment if taken or based upon forged educational certificates. It is not in dispute that the suppression of material fact amounts to fraud as per the definition of ‘fraud’ as provided under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For ready reference the same is being reproduced here-in-below: “17. It is not in dispute that the suppression of material fact amounts to fraud as per the definition of ‘fraud’ as provided under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For ready reference the same is being reproduced here-in-below: “17. ‘‘Fraud’’ defined – “Fraud’’ means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:- (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.” It is further settled position of law that fraud vitiates everything. Forgery avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the ambit of forgery in Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363 has observed at paragraph Nos.13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as follows:- “13. It is 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 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) [13] “…….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.” 14. In A.P. State Financial Corpn. Vs. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu this Court has observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. “Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law.” 15. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Sahw Bros., it has been held as under : (SCC p. 553, para 20) “20. “Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law.” 15. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Sahw Bros., it has been held as under : (SCC p. 553, para 20) “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 16. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh this Court observed that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper over all these centuries. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana. 17. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi this Court held that “misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.” Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove lays down that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented, in such circumstances, the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. 25. Further plea has been taken on behalf of writ petitioner that since the writ petitioner has rendered 37 years of long service and as such the equity demands that no adverse action is to be taken, but we are not in agreement with such submission taking into consideration the fact that the principle of equity will come if the appointment is based upon genuine document or if there is no misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner, as would appear from the judgment rendered in Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors (supra), as referred in preceding paragraphs. 26. The question of equity on the ground of rendering long length of service on the basis of incorrect caste certificate fell for consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors [ (2017) 8 SCC 670 ], wherein at paragraph 86 and 87, it has been held by upholding the judgment rendered by High Court that the appointment of the appellants cannot be held to have attained finality since was obtained on the basis of fake caste certificate. Paragraph 86 and 87 of the judgment is quoted as under: “8. Paragraph 86 and 87 of the judgment is quoted as under: “8. [Rajendra v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Civil Appeal No. 9154 of 2015] 86. The appellant was appointed as a trainee technician in Air India on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 6-8-1997 on the basis of a caste certificate dated 9-8-1988 stating that he belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter the appointment of the appellant was confirmed on 1-3-1999. The second respondent sought a clarification from Tahsildar, Nagpur to ascertain whether the caste certificate is genuine or not. The Tahsildar by a letter dated 17-10-2008 stated that the name of the appellant is not borne in the records. Accordingly the second respondent terminated the services of the appellant by an order dated 3-11-2009. The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 5-10-2012 invalidated the caste claim of the appellant. 87. The High Court by its judgment dated 11-3-2013 [Rajendra v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 438 : (2013) 3 Mah LJ 393] has declined to grant protection to the services of the appellant upon the invalidation of his claim to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe by the Scrutiny Committee on 5-10-2012. There is a clear and patent misuse of process by the appellant. In the absence of the caste validity certificate, the appointment of the appellant cannot be held to have attained finality. Having due regard to the reasons contained in the body of this judgment, we find no error in the judgment [Rajendra v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 438 : (2013) 3 Mah LJ 393] of the High Court. The civil appeal shall stand dismissed. No other submission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs.” Similarly in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Orissa Vs. Bibhisan Kanhar AIR 2017 SC 3417 , it has been held that obtaining caste fraudulently such person cannot be allowed to take advantage. 27. Further, it is settled position of law, if any illegality has been committed since its inception, the subsequent development cannot rectify the illegality committed at its inception as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , in particular paragraph 37, which reads as under: “37. vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , in particular paragraph 37, which reads as under: “37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam, Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra and Ritesth Tewari v. State of U.P).” Herein, the fact of the case that the issuing authority of the matriculation certificate, i.e., Bihar School Examination Board, had taken the plea about non-issuance of any certificate under the aforesaid Roll Code for the relevant year, in which, the petitioner is alleged to have passed, as would appear from the stand taken by the board, in its counter affidavit dated 09.02.2022, as quoted and referred above. 28. Therefore, according to our considered view that appointment since is based upon the document which is forged as per the stand of the issuing authority-BSEB, the appointment of the writ petitioner is to be treated to be void ab initio. 29. 28. Therefore, according to our considered view that appointment since is based upon the document which is forged as per the stand of the issuing authority-BSEB, the appointment of the writ petitioner is to be treated to be void ab initio. 29. This Court, having discussed the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, travelled to the order passed by learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has not given any finding with respect to the effect of commission of fraud and further has not considered the plea of the respondents-State of Jharkhand about non-issuance of matriculation certificate from the concerned Board and merely considering the fact that the petitioner has rendered 37 years of long service allowed the writ petition, which according to our considered view cannot be said to justified order rather if fraud has been committed basis upon which appointment has been obtained, the appointee has no right to be appointed as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors (supra). 30. This Court, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, discussed above, is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 31. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. 32. In the result, the instant intra-court appeal stands allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that after order dated 3rd January, 2022 passed by this Court, he made application under Right to Information Act to District Superintendent of Education on 6th January, 2022 requesting therein to provide attested copy of Matriculation certificate which had come in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Giridih vide memo no. 3491 dated 21st September, 2017. The District Superintendent of Education furnished information vide letter dated 14.02.2022 and from perusal of information received by him along with letter dated 21st September, 2017 sent by Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, attested by Vigilance Office, Bihar School Examination Board on 3rd February, 2018. 3491 dated 21st September, 2017. The District Superintendent of Education furnished information vide letter dated 14.02.2022 and from perusal of information received by him along with letter dated 21st September, 2017 sent by Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, attested by Vigilance Office, Bihar School Examination Board on 3rd February, 2018. That goes to show that after verifying the same it was attested by him, but, it is stated that the said letter was not issued by him, then the question arises that if it was not issued then how it was attested by Vigilance Officer, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, as in the counter affidavit filed by the Board dated 9th February, 2022 at paragraph 13 it has been stated that letter dated 21st September, 2017 was not issued by him. Therefore, serious doubt has been casted that if that letter was not issued by him then how such information was given to him by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih vide information furnished on 14.02.2022 along with attested copy of letter dated 21st September, 2017 by the Vigilance Officer, BSEB, Patna, therefore, it requires enquiry. 34. This Court has gone through the aforesaid document and is of the view that if it is stated by the Board in its counter affidavit at paragraph 13 that letter dated 21st September, 2017 has not been issued by it then how information under Right to Information Act has been given attaching therewith attested copy of letter dated 21st September, 2017 by the Secretary, Vigilance, BSEB, Patna, the matter requires to be enquired into by the competent authority of the State Government. 35. In such view of the matter, the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to conduct an enquiry as to how such information has been furnishing and fix accountability upon the concerned within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 36. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant intra-court appeal stands disposed of.