IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10180 of 2006 BADARUJAMA KHAN SON OF LATE MADIHUZAMA KHAN RESIDENT OF MURADABAD, MURADABAD, P.S. SASARAM ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. SECRETARY, ANIMAL & FISHERY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BRIHAD (LARGE ANIMAL DEVELOPMET PROJECT AREA DEANAPUR, PATNA) 5. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, CENTRAL AREA, PATNA. 6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEADQUARTER, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 2 22/11/2010 Petitioner was appointed on a Class III post because of the demise of his father while in harness. This was a compassionate appointment offered by the respondents on the basis of his educational qualification which he claimed and tendered certificates in support thereof. After his appointment when the certificate of matriculation was sent for verification for its authenticity to the Bihar School Examination Board, it was found that the same was forged and fabricated and, therefore, a show cause was issued to him as to why an appropriate order be not passed. Initially the respondents decided to relegate the petitioner on Class IV post which would be - 2 - evident from annexre-5 but then the Director, Animal Husbandry Department on reconsideration of the matter issued annexure-1 by virtue of which petitioner came to be dismissed. The ground given is that petitioner obtained employment under the respondent State by fraudulent means. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he cannot be punished twice over for the same act of indiscretion. His reversion to Class IV post was good enough and, there was no occasion to dismiss him from service because after all it was for compassionate reason that appointment came to be given to him. No doubt, petitioner was reverted on discovery of this fact but then it is also a fact that petitioner had obtained employment by misrepresentation and fraud by using non genuine certificate and fraud goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, employment obtained by the petitioner had to be interfered with. Petitioner is to blame for the present situation where he has landed. If he did not have the requisite qualification, he ought not to have taken recourse to the document with regard to his qualification which was not found to be genuine. The - 3 - Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the order because any interference would amount to rewarding the petitioner for fraudulent action committed by him for which findings came to be recorded after giving him an opportunity in this regard. Equity also does not favour the petitioner because justice cannot be extended to a person who himself has created ignominy by himself upon his conduct. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)