question. Contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since the misrepresentation, fraud and deceit committed by the Manager stands proved, action of the Manager in appointing the 5th respondent and in getting approval of such appointment, will stand vitiated. But neither the authorities concerned nor this court can arrive at any such conclusion, because even if any such fraud has been committed with respect to appointment of the petitioner, it cannot be construed that she was duly appointed in the leave vacancy and that she became an eligible claimant to be appointed against the death vacancy which arose on 13/08/2004. The alleged fraud, even assuming as stands proved, could not be considered as sufficient reason to set aside the appointment and approval of the 5th respondent. This is because, the petitioner was never appointed in compliance with the mandate of the relevant Rules nor her appointment was approved at any point of time. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 assumes importance in this respect. It is only when the appointing authority makes an appointment and forward the same for approval to the Educational Officer along with required particulars and documents, the authority can take
