An appointment obtained by misrepresentation and fraud is vitiated and is liable to be canceled.

In response to an advertisement dated 25-2-1985 issued by the U. P. Higher Education Services Com mission (herein after referred to as the Commission), inviting applications for ap pointment to the post of Principal in Rajarshi Tandon Manila Mahavidyalaya, Al lahabad (herein after referred to as the Col lege), the petitioner applied for the said post and was selected by the Commission. On the recommendation of the Commis sion she was appointed as the Principal which post she joined on 13-7- 1985. Sub sequently a complaint was made against the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Principal, in which it was mentioned that although the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Principal of the College but she has secured her selection from the Com mission by making false statement regard ing her eligibility qualifications. On the basis of the said complaint the Government appointed Dr. S. C. Tiwari, Assistant Direc tor Higher Education U. P, for making en quiry in the matter who, after making neces sary enquiry, submitted a report holding that the petitioner made false statement regarding her eligibility qualifications before the Commission and has secured her selection on that basis. The Commission also issued a notice dated 11-2-1988 to the petitioner, in response to which she sub mitted her explanation. The Commission, after making necessary enquiry, passed a detailed order dated 21-7-1988 holding the petitioner guilty of making false statement in her application regarding her eligibility qualifications and securing selection from the Commission by mispresentation and fraud. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the writ petition No. 14260 of 1988. By an interim order dated 1-8-1988 this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21-7- 88. There after the Director Higher Education U. P. (herein after referred to as the Director) passed an order dated 1-9-1988 asking the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, not to make a payment of salary to the petitioner unless she gives an undertaking in the form of an affidavit for refund of the amount which may be paid to her as salary if her writ petition is dismissed by this Court. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Director the Petitioner has filed the second writ petition No. 3551 of 1989 for getting it quashed. Further prayer for writ of man damus directing the respondents to con tinue to pay the salary to her, was also made. This Court on 24-2-1989 stayed the opera tion of the said order dated 1-9-1988. It appears that there is dispute between the parties regarding the working of the petitioner in the college as Principal. The petitioner was also not paid the salary by the Government. She, therefore, prayed for another interim order before this Court for payment of her salary. This Court on 26-4-1996 passed an interim order directing pay ment of salary of the post of the Principal to the petitioner.

2. The respondent-Commission has filed counter-affidavit. Petitioner, there after, filed rejoinder- affidavit in reply there to. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions in support of the writ petition viz. (i) The petitioner was having eligibility qualifications, namely, teaching experience of seven years; (ii) Even if it is found that she was not having requisi te teaching experience at the time of her selection by the Commission, she has made up the deficiency thereafter before cancella tion of her appointment; and (iii) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case petitioner is entitled to continue in service even if it is found that she was not eligible at the time of her selection as Principal. The learned counsel for the respondent/com mission has disputed the above contentions.

4. Admittedly, one of the eligibility qualifications for appointment as Principal of a Degree College is teaching experience of seven years at the degr