JUDGMENT : DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated April 4, 2010 passed in three Original Applications which were disposed of by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. 2. The writ petitioners here were the original applicants in O.A.9423 of 2008 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. 3. Two other Original Applications being O.A.6633 of 2008 and O.A.9630 of 2008 were also disposed of by the impugned order dated April 5, 2010. 4. Two writ petitions were filed against the impugned order dated April 5, 2010. One is the present writ petition. The other is the WPST 304 of 2010. 5. The other writ petition being WPST 304 of 2010 was disposed of by the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016 passed by the coordinate Bench. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by an order dated September 1, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.1113 of 2017 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.25755 of 2016 (The State of West Bengal & ors. vs. Debasis Das & ors.) disposed of the Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016. 6. The three original applications assailed a decision taken by the authorities dated June 19, 2008 cancelling a selection process for the post of Assistant Investigator under Bureau of Applied Economics & Statistics, Government of West Bengal. 7. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated April 5, 2010 concurred with the view of the authorities as enshrined in the writing dated June 19, 2008. 8. As noted above, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated April 5, 2010, received consideration by the coordinate Bench in a separate writ petition being W.P.S.T.304 of 2010 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016. By such judgment and order dated February 11, 2016, the coordinate Bench was pleased to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and quashed the order dated June 19, 2008 of the department. The coordinate Bench directed the respondent authorities to consider the appointment of the writ petitioners therein in accordance with the merit list as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month from the date of availing of the certified copy of the order, if the posts were not filled up in the concerned recruitment year. 9. The coordinate Bench directed the respondent authorities to consider the appointment of the writ petitioners therein in accordance with the merit list as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month from the date of availing of the certified copy of the order, if the posts were not filled up in the concerned recruitment year. 9. State of West Bengal carried a Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (C) No.25755 of 2016 against the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016 of the co-ordinate Bench, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.111139 of 2017 on September 1, 2017. The relevant portion of the order dated September 1, 2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as follows:- “2. The State of West Bengal is before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Calcutta dated 11.02.2016 in W.P.S.T. No.304 of 2010. The issue pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Investigator in the Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics. 3. There is a chequered history for the case. The selection process, as a matter of fact, commenced by issuing a Notification on 16.01.2007. On account of certain litigations, the selection could not be finalized. In between, there was an amendment to the Recruitment Rules and procedures. It is the case of the writ petitioners, who were six in number, before the High Court that they have been selected for appointment and any subsequent change in the rules should not affect their prospects. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal has brought to our notice that there are 75 vacant posts and on account of litigations for the last 10 years, the posts could not be filled up. 5. Having regard to the fact that the selection has been in litigation for quite long and having regard to the fact that only six of them got affected on account of the cancellation of selection, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of equity, justice and fairness that the State appoints those six people in furtherance of the selection already conducted and then take recourse to the selection under the new rules in respect of the remaining vacancies. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the State of West Bengal to appoint those six private respondents to the post of Assistant Investigators in the Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics within a period of one month from today. 6. We make it clear that this direction is issued in the peculiar facts of this case for doing complete justice between the parties and, therefore, the same will not be treated as a precedent and no further claim will be entertained before the High Court.” 10. As noted in the order dated September 1, 2017, the selection process commenced by the issuance of a notification dated January 16, 2007. Initially, the selection process was limited to the sponsored candidates. Apart from sponsored candidates, other candidates also participated. A panel was prepared on the basis of the selection conducted both of the sponsored and non-sponsored candidates. A slew of litigation followed. Selection was not finalized. The Recruitment Rules and Procedures underwent an amendment during interregnum. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated September 1, 2017 proceeded to issue directions as noted in paragraph-5 thereof. 12. There are two sets of parties who seek addition to the present writ petition. These two sets of parties are represented by two different sets of advocates. These two set of parties participated in the selection process. 13. Mr. Abhrotosh Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing for one set of parties who seek to be added as party respondents in the writ petition submits that, the State of West Bengal committed fraud on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in obtaining the order dated September 1, 2017. He refers to the contents of such order. He submits that, incorrect factual information was given to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on behalf of the State of West Bengal. Therefore, such order was passed. Such order stands vitiated by fraud. He relies upon (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221 (A.V. Papayya Sastry and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others) on the proposition that, fraud vitiates everything. Any Court can look into the allegation of fraud whenever such plea is taken up. He submits that, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ex facie establishes that fraud was committed. 14. Mr. of A.P. and others) on the proposition that, fraud vitiates everything. Any Court can look into the allegation of fraud whenever such plea is taken up. He submits that, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ex facie establishes that fraud was committed. 14. Mr. Abhrotosh Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate relies upon (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 221 (Buddhadeb Ruidas and others vs. State of West Bengal and others) submits that in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the initial recruitment to be processed. The same modality should be adopted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. Mr. Abhrotosh Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate relying upon (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 696 (H.M. Bags Manufacturer v. Collector of Central Excise) submits that, the subsequent notification amending the selection process should be read to mean that, the selection already undertaken under the previous rejection should not be disturbed. 16. Mr. Swarup Paul, learned advocate appearing for the other sets of parties who seek to be added to the writ petition, relies upon (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases Page 1 (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu [Dead] by LRS. Vs. Jagannath [Dead] by LRS. And others) and (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 476 (Union of India and others vs. Ramesh Gandhi) for the proposition that, fraud vitiates everything. 17. As noted above, a selection process was initiated in the year 1997. The petitioners before us along with the persons who seek themselves to be added a party respondents, participated in such selection process. The selection undertaken in 2007 was limited to sponsored candidates. However, during the selection process, both sponsored as well as non-sponsored candidates were considered. 18. It is admitted at the bar that no public advertisement was issued in respect of the selection process commencing in 2007. 19. A slew of litigation ensued and therefore, the selection was not concluded. 20. Thereafter, State took a decision dated June 19, 2008 cancelling the selection process. This decision was assailed by way of three original applications. All the three original applications were disposed of by the impugned order dated April 5, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. 21. The order dated April 5, 2010 passed by the Tribunal was considered by the coordinate Bench in W.P.S.T.304 of 2010. This decision was assailed by way of three original applications. All the three original applications were disposed of by the impugned order dated April 5, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. 21. The order dated April 5, 2010 passed by the Tribunal was considered by the coordinate Bench in W.P.S.T.304 of 2010. By the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016 the coordinate Bench set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to give appointment to the petitioners involved therein. A Special Leave Petition was carried to the Supreme Court which was disposed of by the order dated September 1, 2017. 22. While seeking themselves to be added as a parties to the present writ petition, both the sets of persons who seek themselves to be added as parties did not speak any word with regard to the fraud allegedly committed by the State of West Bengal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. On a query of the Court, learned advocate appearing for both sets of parties seeking to be added as respondents in the present writ petition submits on instruction that their clients were aware of the order of the Supreme Court dated September 1, 2017 for a considerable period of time. 24. Mr. Abhrotosh Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate seeks direction for filing affidavits since they were not granted an opportunity to use affidavit in the present writ petition. Same prayer is made by Mr. Swarup Paul, Advocate. 25. We considered the records of the present case. Mr. Abhratosh Mazumder’s clients application for addition was initially dismissed for default and was subsequently sought to be restored. The coordinate Bench, considered the rival contentions. The present writ petition is pending since 2010. The application by Mr. Mazumder’s clients was filed in 2017. As noted above, the application does not contain any whisper with regard to the fraud allegedly committed. The subsequent application for addition at the behest of Mr. Swarup Paul, advocate’s clients also do not contain any averments with regard to fraud allegedly committed. None of these parties made any attempt to bring on record the particulars of the alleged fraud by way of any pleading. 26. The authorities cited at the bar with regard to fraud namely, Buddhadeb Ruidas and others (supra), A.V. Papayya Sastry and others and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) are of the view that, fraud unravels everything. 27. None of these parties made any attempt to bring on record the particulars of the alleged fraud by way of any pleading. 26. The authorities cited at the bar with regard to fraud namely, Buddhadeb Ruidas and others (supra), A.V. Papayya Sastry and others and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) are of the view that, fraud unravels everything. 27. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law sought to be propounded on behalf of the added respondents that, fraud vitiates everything. However, fraud needs to be pleaded. Fraud needs to be established also on the basis of the pleadings. 28. As noted above, none of the parties who seeks themselves to add as respondents in the writ petition, pleaded fraud in their application. As noted above, the writ petition is pending since 2010. Application for addition was made in 2017 and in 2019. Since thereafter, no steps were taken by any of the persons seeking to be added as party respondents to bring on record any averment to support their contention with regard to fraud. 29. So far as this Bench is concerned, the matter was taken up for consideration on June 23, 2023, July 7, 2023, July 20, 2023 and July 28, 2023. 30. Noticing the contention of fraud, the parties were afforded opportunities to take appropriate steps. The parties who sought to be added to the present writ petition, chose a particular course of action of not placing any pleading with regard to the fraud alleged by them. 31. In such circumstances, we are not minded to consider the allegation of fraud, as alleged on behalf of the persons seeking to be added as party respondents in absence of the relevant pleadings with regard thereto. In such context, prayer for filing affidavits is considered and rejected. 32. In Buddhadeb Ruidas (supra) the Supreme Court held that, there was no scintilla of doubt that there was requirement of advertisement for inviting names in the selection process. However, in the special features of the case the Supreme Court did not think it prudent that the selection process earlier therein should be cancelled. 32. In Buddhadeb Ruidas (supra) the Supreme Court held that, there was no scintilla of doubt that there was requirement of advertisement for inviting names in the selection process. However, in the special features of the case the Supreme Court did not think it prudent that the selection process earlier therein should be cancelled. Since the Supreme Court noted the peculiar facts of that case, and decided not to interfere with the selection process, and since the factual matrix of the present case is different with the intervention of the order dated September 1, 2017 passed by the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner and the persons seeking to be added as party respondents in the writ petition. 33. In view of the discussion made above, WP.ST 325 of 2010 is dismissed without any order as to costs. 34. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. 35. I agree.