of the respondent no. 8 being the own nephew of the then Mukhiya, who was the Chairman of the Selection Committee at the relevant time, has also not been denied. The Court is not persuaded to accept the fact that 9 persons who were having better percentage than the respondent no. 8 would choose not to appear for the counselling even after having applied for the post. Equally, in the considered opinion of the Court, the close relationship of uncle-nephew between the then Mukhiya, who was Chairman of the Selection Committee and the respondent no. 8, also gives rise to a bona fide presumption of bias, specially in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where at least 9 more meritorious candidates have been overlooked and respondent no. 8 has been appointed. This, clearly, is an act of fraud and the law being settled that fraud vitiates all subsequent actions, the appointment of the respondent no. 8 cannot be sustained. The fact that the respondent no. 8 may have continued for a long period is also of no help since we have come to a finding that such appointment was a result of fraud. Further, though the initial appointment was for 11 months but the respondent no. 8 has continued on the post by way of extension and subsequently, after coming into force of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2006, has automatically become a Panchayat Teacher, without there being any selection process during the entire period, except for the initial selection in the year 2005 as Shiksha Mitra. Thus, the continuation of the
