Appointments obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated documents are non-est in the eye of the law and do not create any rights in favor of the person.

1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order by which the writ petition of the appellants, SWP No. 764/2003, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants had filed the writ petition for quashing order No. 390/HME/03 dated 21st April, 2003 by which their appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Medical Assistant) was cancelled, and for ancillary reliefs. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows.

2. On 29th April, 1997 an advertisement notice was issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB) inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist. Matriculates possessing diploma in Medical Assistants Training Course of the State Medical Faculty were eligible to apply. The appellants applied for the post. After interview etc., vide select list published on 8th December, 1997 they were selected for appointment. They figured at serial nos. 8 and 19 respectively of the select list. On 31st December, 1997 appointment orders were issued.

3. One Vikas Sharma filed a writ petition, SWP No. 149 of 1998, challenging the selection of the appellants. On 31st May, 2001 the petition was disposed of with a direction to the SSRB to communicate the break up of the marks secured by the petitioner, the respondents i.e. the appellants herein and the last selected candidate. In course of implementation of the said direction, it transpired that the marks certificates produced by the appellants were fake. In the circumstances, by order impugned in the writ petition dated 21st April, 2003, the appointment of the appellants was rescinded / cancelled with immediate effect. The appellants approached this Court for quashing of the said order and for other incidental reliefs, as indicated at the outset.

4. Vide order dated 29th April, 2004 in the connected writ case, in the facts and circumstances, the Vigilance Organization was directed to enquire into genuineness of the marks certificates produced by the appellants leading to their appointment. The Vigilance Organization submitted report dated 22nd September, 2004, the relevant part of which may be extracted as under:

"The perusal of records and marks certificates and above comparison table reveals that the attested photocopies of marks certificate of Sh. Sham Lal, furnished by SSRB has a mention of 105/150 marks in practical instead of 79/150 whereas the marks certificate of Sat Paul has a mention of 106/150 instead of 76/150.

Thus the suspects Sh. Sham Lal & Sat Paul, by fabricating a forged / fake document regarding the marks obtained in the one year Medical Assistance Training Course for the year 1990 and 1989 respectively by increasing the marks in the practical examination from 79/150 to 105/150 thereby making a total of 155/250 instead of 129/250. And in respect of suspect Sh. Sat Paul the marks increased in the practical examination is from 76/150 to 106/150 thereby making a total of 158/250 instead of 128/250. By fabricating marks in the practical examination by the above two Medical Assistants Sh. Sham Lal s/o Charan Dass r/o Abdullian, R. S. Pura and Sat Paul s/o Ram Chand r/o Village Lovain, R. S. Pura made them eligible for appointment in open merit category and thus depriving other genuine aspirants for the appointment with higher merit."

5. In the earlier part of the report the Vigilance Organization stated in a tabular form the marks obtained by the appellants as per the marks certificates furnished by Block Medical Officer, R. S. Pura; Chief Medical Officer, Jammu and the State Medical Faculty, Jammu showing that appellant Sham Lal had obtained 129/250 and appellant Sat Paul had obtained 128/250 marks. However, as per the marks certificates produced by the appellants before the SSRB, they were shown to have obtained 155/250 and 158/250 marks, respectively.

6. The learned Single Judge noticed that despite opportunity given to the appellants, they did not file any rejoinder to controvert the contents of the said report