IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14625 of 2009 RENU KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 17.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim is that being an applicant for appointment on the post of Anganbari Seviak under an advertisement of 2007, she was placed at serial 2 of the merit panel when another was placed at serial 1. The petitioner raised the issue of ineligibility of appointment of the person at serial 1. The authorities on enquiry opined that she has obtained appointment on forged and fabricated marks sheet leading to annulment of appointment on 24.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that since the person at serial 1 has now been removed for having obtained a fraudulent appointment and the petitioner has raised the issue well within time, there is no justification for the Respondents to consider fresh appointment and they are bound to consider the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State contends that if the person at serial 1 has been terminated after appointment, fresh advertisement and selection has to be made. Once the selection is made and a candidate joins, the vacancy exhausts. If the candidate subsequently resigns or terminated, there cannot be stated to be a continuing vacancy for a claim to the person next in the panel. The panel exhausted on the joining of the candidate. But, where termination is on the ground 2 of forgery and fabrication, it amounts to a fraudulent appointment. The position in law shall be as if there has been no appointment as fraud strikes in the root. It would be deemed that the person at serial 1 was never appointed. If the petitioner was at serial 2, she automatically assumes the status of the person at serial 1 of the panel. The only issue now would be whether the petitioner had raised the issue within one year from the date of appointment of the person at serial 1. Prima facie, that appears to be the case of the petitioner. However, there is no counter affidavit on record and, therefore, this Court does not have the benefit of the knowledge whether the termination of the person at serial 1 has been questioned by her before any appropriate forum. The writ application is disposed with direction to the District Programme Officer to examine the issue in light of the aforesaid discussion and proceed thereafter in accordance with law in light of his findings with regard to the aforesaid issues of facts by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)