JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2378 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed refusing to interfere with the order of termination. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder. 3. The writ petitioner claims to be the grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha who died in harness on 17.06.1986 leaving behind his widow Smt. Vidya Devi and one son Mr. Ashutosh Kumar who was one year and three months old at the time of death of his father. 4. Smt. Vidya Devi, widow of late B.P. Sinha made an application before the Principal, RIT, Jamshedpur for compassionate appointment of Niraj Kumar Singh-petitioner by showing him as her grandson. 5. A separate application has also been filed by Smt. Vidya Devi showing the petitioner-Niraj Kumar Singh as her grandson seeking compassionate appointment for him. 6. The writ petitioner-Niraj Kumar Singh was provided job in the RIT, Jamshedpur on daily wages in the year 1987 on compassionate ground. On 10.09.2001, Smt. Vidya Devi filed an affidavit stating that her grandson Niraj Kumar Singh who was given compassionate appointment on daily wages be taken in regular service on account of death of her husband. 7. A separate affidavit was also filed by the writ petitioner that late B.P. Sinha was his grandfather and there was no case pending against him and he was never convicted in any criminal case, therefore, his services may be regularized. 8. The respondent, on the basis of the application and affidavits so moved before the Board of Governors, confirmed the services of Niraj Kumar Singh by taking him under regular establishment. 9. Smt. Vidya Devi, the widow of late B.P. Sinha, has filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her son Ashutosh Kumar. 9. Smt. Vidya Devi, the widow of late B.P. Sinha, has filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her son Ashutosh Kumar. But the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.01.2002, wherein, this Court has observed all the undisputed facts and denied the compassionate appointment in favour of Ashutosh Kumar saying that on the date of his father's death, i.e. 17.06.1986, he was one year old and on the request of Smt. Vidya Devi, widow of late B.P. Sinha, compassionate appointment was given to Niraj Kumar Singh, the petitioner. 10. The order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 was challenged by the petitioner by filing L.P.A. No. 126 of 2002 but the same was dismissed. The further fact of the case is that one Mithilesh Kumar seeking compassionate appointment has filed a writ petition alleging therein that irregularities being committed in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground by filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 680 of 2002 which was disposed of on 24.01.2002, by which, the direction was passed that if one or other persons have been given appointment after long delay of about 12 years of death in the recent past, say within last 1 year or some person has been appointed illegally by giving wrong information, the petitioner may bring the same to the notice of the Principal RIT, Jamshedpur, who will take care. It was also directed that in such case, if any illegality was found in the matter of such appointment, the authority after notice to the concerned party may pass an appropriate order. 11. The respondent RIT has proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of the appointment, for which, a Committee was constituted and the Committee has found on due deliberation and after hearing the petitioner that the appointment made on compassionate ground is not in pursuance to the Scheme, since, the petitioner is not a real grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha. 12. Show cause notice has been issued asking the explanation as to why the services of the writ petitioner may not be terminated and the reply having been filed but the same having not found to be satisfactory, accordingly, the decision for termination from service has been taken by passing the impugned order on 01.03.2005. 13. 12. Show cause notice has been issued asking the explanation as to why the services of the writ petitioner may not be terminated and the reply having been filed but the same having not found to be satisfactory, accordingly, the decision for termination from service has been taken by passing the impugned order on 01.03.2005. 13. The aforesaid order has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2378 of 2005 and the learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the admission on the part of the writ petitioner that he is not the real grandson of late B.P. Sinha and as such, has been held not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground and accordingly, refused to interfere with the impugned order of termination, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 14. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the order of termination is absolutely illegal and arbitrary, since, the appointment made in favour of the writ petitioner has already attained its finality by an order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 and the same has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2002 passed in L.P.A. No. 126 of 2002. 15. It has been submitted that once appointment made in favour of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground has been approved by this Court, there was no occasion for the respondents to come out with the order of termination on the ground that he was not entitled on the basis of the Scheme for providing appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, the order of termination is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Further, argument has been advanced that the writ petitioner since has rendered his service for two years and as such, he, be retained in service. 17. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12 SCC 342 . 18. Per contra, Mr. Further, argument has been advanced that the writ petitioner since has rendered his service for two years and as such, he, be retained in service. 17. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12 SCC 342 . 18. Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-RIT has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, since, the learned Single Judge has considered the issue of mis-representation by giving declaration by the writ petitioner claiming himself to be the grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha, as would appear from the reference made to that effect in the impugned order, wherein, the writ petitioner has given an affidavit claiming himself to be grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha and the Scheme pertaining to providing appointment on compassionate ground is very explicit and as such, his appointment dehors the provision of Scheme and if in that view of the matter, the decision to terminate the service of the writ petitioner has been taken after following the due procedure of providing opportunity of hearing then it cannot be said to suffer from an error. 19. It has been submitted that the reliance which has been put-forth on behalf of the appellant in the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar (Supra), the same is not applicable on the facts of the given case. 20. Learned counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no error and as such, the instant intra-court appeal may be dismissed. 21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 22. The undisputed facts in this case is that the writ petitioner Niraj Kumar Singh claiming himself to be the grandson of late B.P. Sinha has been provided with an appointment. 22. The undisputed facts in this case is that the writ petitioner Niraj Kumar Singh claiming himself to be the grandson of late B.P. Sinha has been provided with an appointment. The widow of late B.P. Sinha (the deceased employee), although has supported the version of claim of the writ petitioner to be the grandson of the deceased employee, basis upon which, the writ petitioner who was on daily wages basis, has been taken into regular establishment under the compassionate category. 23. The widow, Smt. Vidya Devi, however, after attaining the majority of his son, namely, Ashutosh Kumar, has made an objection regarding the appointment of the writ petitioner claiming not to be her grandson. The grievance having not been redressed, therefore, a writ petition has been filed being W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001. 24. It appears from the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 that the issue fell for consideration was that once the appointment has been made with the consent of Smt. Vidya Devi in favour of the writ petitioner, it is not available for the widow Vidya Devi to question the appointment so made in favour of the writ petitioner. 25. This Court, while passing the order in W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 on 10.01.2002 has dismissed the writ petition, however, observation has been made at paragraph-6 that respondent-RIT would be at liberty to proceed against such persons who have made false representation and filed false affidavit. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No. 126 of 2002 and vide order dated 11.07.2002, the aforesaid letters patent appeal has been dismissed, however, the directions contained/observations made in para-6 of the judgment under appeal, have been deleted from the judgment. The writ petitioner continued to discharge his duty. 26. But, one Mithilesh Kumar has filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 680 of 2002 alleging therein that the irregularities are being committed for making appointment on compassionate ground and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2002, has directed the respondent-RIT to conduct an inquiry and take decision after issuing notice to the concerned party. But, one Mithilesh Kumar has filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 680 of 2002 alleging therein that the irregularities are being committed for making appointment on compassionate ground and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2002, has directed the respondent-RIT to conduct an inquiry and take decision after issuing notice to the concerned party. When no action was taken in pursuant of the order dated 24.01.2002, a contempt case being Contempt Case (Cvl.) No. 866 of 2002 has been filed and thereafter, a Committee was constituted by the respondent-RIT for a fact finding regarding the allegation of appointment of the writ petitioner. 27. Thereafter, it has been detected that the writ petitioner is not the real grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha and accordingly, show cause notice was issued. The said show cause notice was responded but the respondent RIT after considering the fact that the writ petitioner is not the real grandson of late B.P. Sinha, has issued the order of termination on 01.03.2005. 28. The said order of termination has been challenged by filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2378 of 2005 and the learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the admission made on behalf of the writ petitioner of having not real grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha and as such, held the appointment made in his favour contrary to the Scheme, has refused to interfere with the order of termination. 29. Before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court deems it fit and proper to refer the certain judicial pronouncements in the context of providing appointment on compassionate ground. 30. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 wherein it was observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as of right and the application to be decided as expeditiously as possible and held at paragraph 6, which reads as under: “6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. The above consistent view, has been relied in various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , State of Manipur v. Mohd. Rajaodin, (2003) 7 SCC 511 , Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560 and Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 . 32. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered in the case of State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 dealing with the issue of applicability of the scheme, as to which scheme will be applicable, and answering the same, it has been held that the scheme prevailing on the date of death of the concerned employee will be applicable in consideration of the case for appointment on compassionate ground. In the judgment rendered in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209 wherein at paragraphs 15, 17 and 20 it has been held as under: “15. In the judgment rendered in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209 wherein at paragraphs 15, 17 and 20 it has been held as under: “15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 17. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, while emphasising that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140, Para 2) “2.......The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” (Emphasis supplied) 33. It is, thus, evident from the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the appointment on compassionate ground has been considered to be exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 34. Further, it appears from the proposition that the appointment is to be made on compassionate ground strictly on the basis of the Scheme. 35. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has given much emphasis that the appointment so made in favour of the writ petitioner has attained its finality by this Court, as would appear from the order dated 10.01.2002 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 and upheld by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 126 of 2002 on 11.07.2002 and therefore, the issuance of order of termination is not sustainable. 36. This Court has perused the order passed by the coordinate Division Bench Judge of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 126 of 2002 wherefrom, it is evident that the issue which is basis of order of issuance of termination is not the subject matter before this Court involved in writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001, rather, the issue was the conduct of widow Smt. Vidya Devi who even after giving consent for appointment to be made in favour of the writ petitioner considering the writ petitioner to be her real grandson and when the appointment was provided and when his own son attained majority, then she has raised the issue by questioning the appointment of the writ petitioner. 37. 37. This Court, on that pretext has dismissed the writ petition holding therein that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner. However, at paragraph-6, it has been observed by reserving liberty to respondent RIT to proceed against the person who has filed affidavit and misrepresented before the respondent. 38. However, the aforesaid observation made at para-6 subsequently been deleted by the order passed in L.P.A. No. 126 of 2002. But the fact remains that the issue of questioning the appointment of the writ petitioner was not the applicability of the Scheme, rather, the conduct of the parties and as such, question of attaining the finality of appointment made in favour of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground, cannot be said to have attained its finality so far as the ground pertaining to applicability of the Scheme depending upon the category of dependents is concerned. 39. Another writ petition has also been filed, basis upon which, enquiry has been conducted in which, the allegation of having no real grandson has been found admitted by the writ petitioner. But if the pleading of the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 will be seen, as has been also observed in the order passed by the learned Single Judge that a separate affidavit was also filed on behalf of the petitioner that late B.P. Sinha was his grandfather. 40. A question has been raised that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner but he even though is not the real grandson of deceased employee late B.P. Sinha but has given an affidavit claiming himself to be the real grandson of late B.P. Sinha. 41. When the writ petitioner is not the real grandson and as such, he will not come under the category of dependent, rather, he will be outside the category of dependents but even then, an affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner claiming himself to be the grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha, the same according to our considered view will be considered to be misrepresentation, since, “misrepresentation” means that active concealment of the correct fact and once there is active concealment of the correct fact, the same will be said to be active suppression of fact and will be considered to be fraud within the meaning of Section 17 of the Contract Act. 42. 42. The appointment, therefore, according to our considered view will said to have obtained by the writ petitioner by commission of fraud and position of law is well settled that fraud vitiates the solemnity of the Act, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 , wherein, it has been observed at paragraph nos. 13 to 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. v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra v. 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. 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.” 43. 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.” 43. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that since the appellant has discharged his duty for two years and as such, the order of termination suffers from an error is concerned, the said argument/ground is not acceptable to this Court for the reason that the illegality if found in any decision since its inception, the same cannot be legalized merely because of lapse of the time, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , wherein, at paragraph-37, it has been held 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.).” 44. It is evident from the proposition laid down that if any wrong has been committed at its inception the same cannot be rectified at later stage. 45. The aforesaid principle also fortifies from the proposition of law that illegality if committed to be rectified the day it come to the notice so as not to perpetuate the illegality, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 , wherein, at paragraph-32, it has been held as under:— “32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules.” 46. Here, in the instant case, as would appear from the material available on record that the writ petitioner has been appointed on furnishing the wrong fact claiming himself to be the real grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha and subsequent thereto, he has been admitted that he is not the real grandson, the same goes to the inception and as such, the same cannot be legalized otherwise it will lead to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated. 47. This Court, after having discussed the fact in entirety, as above and considering the argument advance on behalf of the appellant that the appointment so made in favour of the writ petitioner since has attained its finality, the order of termination cannot be said to be just and proper, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to be acceptable as per the reasons referred hereinabove. 48. Since, the writ petitioner has got appointment by suppression of fact by giving wrong declaration by filing an affidavit claiming himself to be the grandson of late B.P. Sinha and basis upon which, if show cause notice has been issued asking the explanation as to why his services be not terminated and if the service has been terminated, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 49. Further, the writ petitioner himself has admitted, as would appear from the impugned order that he is not the real grandson of late B.P. Sinha and as such, in that view of the matter, if the learned Single Judge, has refused to interfere with the impugned order, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 50. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.