JUDGMENT : (Sandeep V. Marne J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal. 2. By this petition, Petitioner challenges order dated 6 December 2022 terminating him from services of Municipal Corporation. He also challenges judgment and order dated 7 July 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Region, Thane rejecting his claim for Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that Petitioner claimed status of Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe and was issued Certificate dated 12 June 2009 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane certifying that he belongs to Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe. He secured admission in Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) College under reservation category on the strength of his tribe certificate. He was called upon by VJTI College to get his Tribe Certificate verified from the Scrutiny Committee. Accordingly, VJTI submitted a proposal dated 13 September 2013 before the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division. During pendency of the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee, Petitioner completed his education and was awarded B-Tech (Civil) degree. 4. An advertisement was issued by the Respondent- Municipal Corporation for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer. Petitioner applied in pursuance of the advertisement for vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. By order dated 21 November 2015 Petitioner came to be selected and appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Water Engineering Department. By letter dated 13 July 2018, Municipal Corporation called him upon to submit Validity Certificate. By letter dated 4 October 2018, Petitioner communicated to the Respondent-Municipal Corporation that his proposal for scrutiny of the Certificate was pending before the Committee and that he was pursuing the said proposal. Since Petitioner failed to submit the Validity Certificate, letter dated 24 March 2021 was issued to him calling him upon to submit the Validity Certificate by 20 April 2021 failing which his services were to be adjusted against supernumerary post. 5. It appears that the Municipal Corporation noticed that the proposal for verification of Tribe Certificate of the Petitioner was already rejected. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 6 July 2021 was issued to the Petitioner calling him upon to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. 5. It appears that the Municipal Corporation noticed that the proposal for verification of Tribe Certificate of the Petitioner was already rejected. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 6 July 2021 was issued to the Petitioner calling him upon to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. Petitioner submitted reply dated 12 July 2021 stating that since his tribe claim was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, his services be adjusted against supernumerary post instead of terminating him. Petitioner was issued one more show cause notice dated 18 May 2022 by the Municipal Corporation inviting his attention to the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 7 July 2015 invalidating his tribe claim. It was alleged that despite knowledge of invalidation of the tribe claim, Petitioner suppressed the same while seeking appointment with the Municipal Corporation. He was therefore called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated. Petitioner submitted reply dated 25 May 2022 taking defence that he had not received any order from the Scrutiny Committee rejecting his tribe claim. He requested for copy of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and once against requested for adjusting him against supernumerary post. 6. The Respondent-Municipal Corporation thereafter passed order dated 6 December 2022 terminating services of Petitioner. Petitioner made representation dated 16 January 2023 for his reinstatement in service. He has thereafter approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (Lodg) No. 3016/2023 challenging termination order. When the petition came up for hearing, a statement was made on Petitioner’s behalf that he noticed the factum of invalidation of his tribe claim only after termination of his services. He therefore expressed desire to challenge the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of on 24 February 2023 with liberty to Petitioner to challenge the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee, as well as the order of termination. 7. In the meantime, Petitioner applied for certified copy of judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 30 January 2023 and received the same on 24 February 2023. He has accordingly filed the present petition challenging the termination order dated 6 December 2022, as well as judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 7 July 2015. 8. Mr. In the meantime, Petitioner applied for certified copy of judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 30 January 2023 and received the same on 24 February 2023. He has accordingly filed the present petition challenging the termination order dated 6 December 2022, as well as judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 7 July 2015. 8. Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner would submit that Petitioner’s services have been wrongfully terminated on the ground of suppression of information. That Petitioner was not aware of rejection of the tribe claim and cannot therefore be accused of suppression. That being a permanent employee of Respondent-Municipal Corporation, his services could not have been terminated without holding proper disciplinary proceedings. That accusation of suppression on the part of Petitioner is a question of fact which can be established only after holding of full-fledged enquiry by leading evidence. That therefore there has been violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Mr. Damle would further submit that Petitioner is entitled to be granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 21 December 2019, under which employees whose caste/tribe claim are invalidated are requested to be adjusted against supernumerary posts. He would further place reliance upon the subsequent GR dated 14 December 2022 under which it has been decided that the employees who are adjusted against the supernumerary posts shall be paid all retirement benefits except promotion and compassionate appointments. Their services should be continued till the dates of their retirement by issuing order for eleven months while granting one day technical break. That the GRs dated 21 December 2019 and 14 December 2022 have been issued with a view to protect services of employees whose tribe claims are invalidated and the case of the Petitioner is therefore fully covered by the said GR. 10. So far as judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, Mr. Damle would assail the same submitting that it suffers from complete non-application of mind. That Petitioner had produced voluminous evidence showing entries of Tokri Koli in respect of the relatives, which are ignored by the Scrutiny Committee. He would submit that the tribe claim of the Petitioner has been invalidated by applying the cultural affinity test whereas the Apex Court has held that cultural affinity test is not a litmus test. That Petitioner had produced voluminous evidence showing entries of Tokri Koli in respect of the relatives, which are ignored by the Scrutiny Committee. He would submit that the tribe claim of the Petitioner has been invalidated by applying the cultural affinity test whereas the Apex Court has held that cultural affinity test is not a litmus test. He would pray for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. Ms. Redkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation would submit that the Petitioner indulged in suppression of factum of invalidation of his tribe claim on 7 July 2015 at the time of appointment to the post of Junior Engineer. That he misguided the Municipal Corporation by stating that his caste claim was pending. She would therefore submit that his services have rightly been terminated, both on account of suppression of facts, as well as invalidation of tribe claim. She would submit that the GRs dated 21 December 2019 and 14 December 2022 are not applicable in the present case. She would pray for dismissal of the petition. 12. Mr. More, the learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the Scrutiny Committee would submit that Petitioner’s tribe claim has rightly been invalidated. That the caste of father and grandfather of the petitioner has been recorded as Hindu-Koli and that those entries falsify his tribe claim. 13. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for our consideration. 14. Petitioner has raised twin issues of correctness of the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating his tribe claim as well the validity of order terminating him from service. We first proceed to decide the issue of correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 15. Perusal of the judgment and order dated 7 July 2015 passed by the Scrutiny Committee would indicate that petitioner’s caste was recorded as ‘Hindu Koli’ in the School Leaving certificate with date of admission as 14 June 1999. Petitioner also relied upon School Leaving Certificate of father, with date of admission as 30 July 1966, in which again his caste was recorded as ‘Hindu-Koli’. School Leaving Certificate of petitioner’s grandfather was also placed before the Committee showing the date of admission as 1 October 1928 and his caste was recorded as ‘Koli’. This is a pre-Constitutional document in which caste of Petitioner’s grandfather was recorded as ‘Koli’. School Leaving Certificate of petitioner’s grandfather was also placed before the Committee showing the date of admission as 1 October 1928 and his caste was recorded as ‘Koli’. This is a pre-Constitutional document in which caste of Petitioner’s grandfather was recorded as ‘Koli’. Thus, in respect of School Leaving Certificates of Petitioner, his father and grandfather, their caste were recorded as ‘Hindu-Koli’ or Koli’ since the year 1928. Petitioner has not been able to explain these entries satisfactorily before the Committee. Even in respect of the documents of other relatives, entries of ‘Hindu-Koli’ or ‘Hindu’ is found. Considering the above documentary evidence, it cannot be stated that there is any perversity in the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee. 16. Petitioner has also failed in cultural affinity test. True it is that, the tribe claim cannot be rejected only on the ground of failure in the cultural affinity test as held by the Apex Court in (i) Anand V/s Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others (2012) 1 SCC 113 , (ii) Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swaraksan Samiti V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2023 SC 1657 . However, in the present case, affinity test is not the only reason why the Petitioner’s tribe claim has been rejected. He has not been able to clear the first stage of demonstrating that in the documents of his paternal relatives, caste is shown as Tokre-Koli. Entries in the school register of the Petitioner, his father and grandfather clearly show that Petitioner does not belong to Tokare Koli tribe. Failire in the affinity test is only an additional reason for rejection of tribe claim. We therefore do not find any error in the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and the same therefore deserves to be upheld. 17. Having upheld the judgment and order dated 7 July 2015 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, we now turn to the next issue about termination of Petitioner’s services. He has raised a defence in the present petition that he was not aware about rejection of his tribe claim and was under impression that the same was pending adjudication. 17. Having upheld the judgment and order dated 7 July 2015 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, we now turn to the next issue about termination of Petitioner’s services. He has raised a defence in the present petition that he was not aware about rejection of his tribe claim and was under impression that the same was pending adjudication. We refuse to believe this theory on account of inconsistent stands taken by the Petitioner on various occasions which are as under: (i) After his appointment, when petitioner was called upon to submit Validity Certificate by letter dated 13 July 2018, he wrote to the Municipal Corporation on 4 October 2018 that the proposal for scrutiny of the certificate has been filed before the Committee and that he was pursuing the Committee for issuance of validity certificate. The contents of letter dated 4 October 2018 would indicate that Petitioner had approached the Scrutiny Committee and pursued the matter for issuance of validity certificate. If indeed Petitioner visited the Scrutiny Committee as claimed in the letter, he ought to have noticed rejection of his tribe claim; (ii) When Writ Petition (Lodg) No.3016/2013 came up for hearing on 24 February 2023, following statement was made on behalf of the Petitioner : “2. Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Advocate submits that it is only after the order of termination was served upon the Petitioner, the Petitioner, for the first time, under the intimation of the termination order came to knowledge of the fact that the caste claim is invalidated.” Thus, this Court was informed that Petitioner noticed rejection of his tribe claim only after service of order of termination. As against this, Petitioner was informed by the Municipal Corporation by show cause notice dated 6 July 2021 that his tribe claim was invalidated. He confirmed the said information by his letter dated 12 July 2021. Thus statement made before this Court in Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 3016/2023 that he acquired knowledge of rejection of tribe claim after termination was clearly fallacious. (iii) Petitioner was informed by Municipal Corporation on 6 July 2021 that his tribe claim was invalidated. However no efforts were made by the Petitioner to obtain certified copy of the judgment and order of the Committee immediately thereafter. (iii) Petitioner was informed by Municipal Corporation on 6 July 2021 that his tribe claim was invalidated. However no efforts were made by the Petitioner to obtain certified copy of the judgment and order of the Committee immediately thereafter. He filed such application under the Right to Information Act only on 30 January 2023 i.e. after lapse of one and half years of issuance of intimation by the Municipal Corporation. This action would indicate lack of bonafides on the part of the Petitioner. (iv) After being informed by the Municipal Corporation about rejection of his tribe claim vide letter dated 6 July 2021, Petitioner first took a stand that he be adjusted against supernumerary post in his reply dated 12 July 2021. At that time, he did not take a defence about lack of knowledge about invalidation of his claim nor sought copy of judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee. It is only after issuance of his second show cause notice dated 18 May 2022 that Petitioner seems to have grown wiser and thought of taking a defence of non-receipt of copy of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and requested for the same from Municipal Corporation. As observed above, he thereafter did not take not take any steps to obtain copy of judgment from Committee and filed application under the Right to Information Act only on 30 January 2023 seeking certified copy of the judgment. This conduct on behalf of the Petitioner would again indicate lack of bonafides. 18. On account of above factors, we find it difficult to believe the theory set up by Petitioner about lack of knowledge about invalidation of tribe claim on his part. Apart from Petitioner’s conduct as indicated above, it was his duty to find out the outcome of the validity proceedings filed in the year 2013. After the VJTI forwarded the proposal for validation of Petitioner’s tribe Certificate on 13 September 2013, Vigilance enquiry was conducted and report of the Vigilance Cell was supplied to Petitioner on 16 March 2015 and his explanation was called for. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 30 June 2015 against the Vigilance Cell report. He was thereafter called for personal hearing on 10 June 2015 which was attended by him alongwith his father. After hearing Petitioner and his father on 10 June 2015, the validity proceedings were closed for final orders. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 30 June 2015 against the Vigilance Cell report. He was thereafter called for personal hearing on 10 June 2015 which was attended by him alongwith his father. After hearing Petitioner and his father on 10 June 2015, the validity proceedings were closed for final orders. Petitioner thus came know in June 2015 that the Committee had closed his case for final orders. It was his duty to enquire about the final order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. Few days later, the committee delivered judgment and order dated 7 July 2015 invalidating his tribe claim. He therefore cannot feign ignorance of passing of judgment and order dated 7 July 2015 by the Committee. 19. Perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Committee would also indicate that copy of the same was dispatched to Petitioner at his address of ‘M.S.E.B Colony, B-2/04, Sector no.3, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400073’. This is the address which he stated in his application form dated 13 May 2015. It is not Petitioner’s case that the residence was shifted during pendency of proposal. There is therefore no reason to believe that the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee dispatched to his address was not served upon him. The three factors of (i) attendance before Committee for hearing on 10 June 2015, (ii) dispatch of judgment and order at Petitioner’s given address and (iii) his subsequent conduct of taking inconsistent stands makes his theory of lack of knowledge of delivery of judgment and order by the scrutiny committee unbelievable. 20. It therefore appears that that Petitioner took a false defence before the Municipal Corporation that he was not aware about the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 21. In the above manner, Petitioner has indulged in suppression of facts and has secured appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by misrepresenting before the Municipal Corporation that he belongs to Tokare Koli Scheduled Tribe, when infact his tribe claim was already invalidated on 7 July 2015. He not only took over the post reserved for ST category after invalidation of tribe claim, but gave false information to Respondent-Municipal Corporation on 4 October 2018 that his tribe claim was pending adjudication. 22. Apart from suppression of facts, Petitioner’s appointment is ab-initio void. The appointment letter was issued on 21 November 2015 after rejection of his tribe claim on 7 July 2015. 22. Apart from suppression of facts, Petitioner’s appointment is ab-initio void. The appointment letter was issued on 21 November 2015 after rejection of his tribe claim on 7 July 2015. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner that his services could not be terminated without holding disciplinary enquiry. We are unable to agree. It is well settled position of law that for cancellation of a void appointment, conduct of disciplinary proceedings are not necessary. 23. In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 the Apex Court has held that an appointee who has obtained appointment by practicing deceit is not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is held: “15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of the law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Castes. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to this Court, he has disqualified himself to hold the post. The appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As the appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.” 24. Petitioner is therefore not entitled to seek conduct of disciplinary proceedings for taking action against him. This is a case where Petitioner’s appointment has been rendered invalid and the same is sought to be cancelled by terminating his services. This is not a case where Petitioner is sought to be punished for having committed a misconduct. Petitioner’ conduct of suppression is an additional factor which would be taken into consideration by this Court while deciding whether he is entitled to be granted any equitable relief in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court. However for the employer it is sufficient to take note of the factum of invalidation of Petitioner’s tribe claim and terminate his services. Therefore, holding of disciplinary enquiry in such as case is not warranted. 25. Also of relevance is the fact that the Respondent- Municipal Corporation did afford opportunity of hearing to Petitioner by issuance of two show cause notices. Petitioner could not and did not dispute invalidation of his tribe claim while responding to the show cause notices. Beyond claiming benefit of adjustment against a supernumerary post, he had no other defence. His entitlement of adjustment against a supernumerary post is being discussed separately. However it cannot be stated there has been violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order of termination. 26. This leave us with the issue of entitlement of Petitioner for adjustment against a supernumerary post in pursuance of G.Rs dated 21 December 2019 and 14 December 2022. The Constitution Bench in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. 26. This leave us with the issue of entitlement of Petitioner for adjustment against a supernumerary post in pursuance of G.Rs dated 21 December 2019 and 14 December 2022. The Constitution Bench in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. V/s. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (2017) 8 SCC 670 has held that upon invalidation of caste/tribe claim, all the benefits secured by an employee on the strength of the Caste Certificate are required to be withdrawn. It is towards of the judgment of the Apex Court that G.R. dated 21 December 2019 was issued by the State Government. The main objective behind issuance of the G.R. was to vacate the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes which were being occupied by the candidates who do not belong to Scheduled Tribe communities. Another object behind issuance of the GR was to take care of a situation of creation of vacuum on account of termination of services of thousands of employees. With these twin objectives, employees not belonging to Scheduled Tribes were moved from the post occupied by them and initially adjusted against supernumerary posts for a period of eleven months by G.R. dated 21 December 2019. By latter G.R. dated 14 December 2022, it has been decided to continue the services of such employees on supernumerary posts till their retirement from services. After their retirements, the supernumerary posts occupied by them would lapse. 27. Thus the objective behind issuance of G.R. dated 21 December 2019 and 14 December 2022 is not to protect somebody like the Petitioner who has recently entered into services by practicing fraud and whose appointment is ab-initio void. What Petitioner expects is that the invalidation of his tribe claim and his conduct of suppression should be ignored and this Court would extend the equitable relief of continuance in service in accordance with GRs dated 21 December 2019 and 14 December 2022. 28. Fraud and justice cannot coexist. They do not dwell together. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 , the Apex Court held: “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree — by the first court or by the highest court — has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.” 29. Suppression of material facts also amounts to fraud as held by the Apex Court in State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149 . We have no matter of doubt that Petitioner deliberately suppressed the factum pf rejection of his tribe claim while securing appeasement with the Municipal Corporation. Having indulged in fraudulent acts, this Court would refuse to extend any equitable relief to Petitioner in exercise of writ jurisdiction. We are therefore of the view that Petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of the G.Rs dated 21 December 2019 and 14 December 2022 by adjusting him against supernumerary posts. 30. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the Petitioner. The judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee as well as the termination order passed by the Municipal Corporation are upheld. We would have been justified in imposing costs upon Petitioner for conduct exhibited by him, both before the Municipal Corporation as well as before this Court in previous and current rounds of litigations. However, only because Petitioner is already out of service, we refrain from doing so. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Rule is discharged.