Fraudulent qualification disclosure leads to exclusion from selection but not wholesale nullification.

The Collector of Bhadrak District issued an advertisement on 08.12.2011 inviting applications for Sikshya Sahayaks, requiring a +2 Examination qualification.

Initially, candidates with Vocational Course qualifications were excluded from the merit list.

A learned Single Judge ordered reconsideration of candidates with +2 Vocational Course and C.T. Training, leading to a reframed provisional Select List.

Subsequently, grievances were raised that some applicants with Vocational and Upasastri Courses had suppressed the fact of passing +2 Arts/Commerce/Science Examinations.

An inquiry was directed and conducted.

Before its conclusion, a second Merit List was drawn, including candidates with Vocational and Upasastri Courses.

Another Single Judge directed the completion of the inquiry and action based on its report, with a rider that those facing allegations should not be included in the Merit List.

Some candidates provided undertakings stating they had not passed any +2 Course other than Vocational/Upasastri, leading to conditional Engagement Orders pending the outcome of W.P.(C) No.7478/2011.

The inquiry concluded that candidates (including Resp. No.4 - Tapaswini Jena, Resp. No.5 - Banajini Mishra, & Resp. No.6 - Pratima Manjari Kar) had submitted false undertakings and prosecuted Vocational/Upasastri Courses in contravention of the Orissa Higher Secondary Act, 1982 & Orissa Higher Secondary Regulations, 1983.

Following a common order dated 05.05.2014, the Collector, via order dated 21.08.2015, found evidence of suppression by Vocational/Upasastri Candidates but declined action, citing the lack of cancellation of their certificates and their 4-5 years of service.

This order was challenged in W.P.(C) No.18706/2015, which a learned Single Judge allowed by the impugned order dated 28.03.2024, directing recasting of the merit list by excluding Vocational/Upasastri candidates (specifically Op Nos. 4, 5 & 6) and issuing engagement orders to the petitioners.

The State and other parties (Op Nos. 4, 5 & 6 in WP(C) No.18706/2015 and Op Nos. 4 & 5 in WP(C) No.720/2016) filed the present Intra Court Appeals.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing recasting of the Merit List by excluding only specific Opposite Parties (Op Nos. 4, 5 & 6) and issuing engagement orders to the writ petitioners, given the long service of the beneficiaries and the non-cancellation of their certificates?

2. Whether the undertaking given by candidates regarding their +2 qualifications constitutes fraud, justifying their exclusion from the selection list?

The court applied principles of equity and justice, particularly concerning the disruption of established service and structured lives.

It also considered the impact of fraud on legal proceedings, referencing the Apex Court's decision in *S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1*, which establishes that fraud vitiates everything.

The court further acknowledged the principle that necessary parties must be arrayed in writ petitions, as held in *Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786*, to avoid setting aside a select list in its entirety.

The Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order, recognizing that the selected candidates had been engaged as Sikshya Sahayaks since April 2011, performing duties without complaint and having been promoted/regularized.

Disengaging them after over a decade would be contrary to reason, law, and justice, especially since they had structured their lives around their engagement.

The Single Judge had specifically excluded only Op Nos. 4, 5 & 6 from the selection list, who were found culpable for giving blatantly false undertakings regarding their +2 qualifications.

This exclusion was consistent with the principle that fraud vitiates everything, as established by *S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath*.

The Court found the Single Judge's approach to be a careful balancing of competing equities, avoiding a wholesale ousting of all working candidates the State had earlier protected based on their length of service.

The Court also upheld the direction for engaging the petitioning respondents, noting the existence of vacancies in teaching posts and the need to prevent eligible candidates from becoming age-barred, structuring the relief to accord with rules of equity and justice.

The argument against issuing conditional engagement orders was rejected, citing the time elapsed and the availability of vacancies.

The Court further affirmed the direction to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to recast the merit list and issue appropriate engagement orders to the writ petitioners (Resp. Nos.1-3 in W.A. No.284 of 2025) as Sikshya Sahayaks or in an equivalent post within four months.

The Appeals were dismissed, and the authorities were directed to implement the impugned orders within three months, under the risk of punitive action for contempt.