IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13199 of 2006 Dinesh Prasad, son of Sri Ramavatar Prasad, Resident of Village Kendua, P.S. Hashua, District Nawada (Bihar). --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. 3. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Nawada. ------------- Respondents ----------- 3 4.7.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the impugned order of termination of the service of the petitioner is based on a finding recorded that his appointment letter itself was forged, this Court would find it difficult to interfere with the impugned order of his termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages by the Civil Surgeon, Nawada district and later on his services were regularized by him by an order dated 11.5.1996. He would submit that the removal of the petitioner after his being allowed to continue in service for the period over eighteen years is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 2 This Court would find that the petitioner claims to have been appinted initially on daily wages by an order dated 22.4.1985. Such order mentions that there was a recommendation of local M.L.A. for engaging the petitioner on daily wages. There is complete denial of the working of the petitioner on daily wages in the counter affidavit by taking a plea that he did not even report on duty and was wholly irregular in the daily wages period. The petitioner, thereafter, is said to have been appointed afresh by memo no.969 dated 11.5.1986 by the Civil Surgeon, Nawada. He is said to have continued at Nawada whereafater he has joined in Gaya district and at Gaya, it is found that the appointment was based on a forged letter dated 11.5.1996. It is on record that the Civil Surgeon of Nawada district pursuant to the query of Civil Surgeon of Gaya district had specifically reported that the alleged letter of the petitoiner’s appointment dated 11.5.1986 was never passed or issued by the office of the Civil Surgeon, Nawada and in 3 fact such appointment letter produced by the petitioner is a forged letter. The petitioner, thereafter, was subjected to a show-cause notice dated 3.7.2003 but the petitioner did not care to file even its reply and somehow after the impugned order had passed on 23.7.2003, he had filed a writ application challenging the show-cause notice dated 3.7.2003. The said writ application in fact was found to be not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed by recording liberty that if any final order has already been passed, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same. The very fact that the petitioner did not choose to produce his so-called appointment letter contained in memo no. 969 dated 11.5.1986 before the competent authority nor did he had filed his show-cause reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Civil Surgeon, Gaya and admittedly served upon the petitioner would go to show that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding to get the truth revealed. This aspect of the matter in fact 4 has also specifically asserted by the respondent in their counter affidavit in paragraph no.9 that the petitioner’s appointment letter was fake and forged. They have also supported this aspect by annexing the report of the Civil Surgeon, Nawada dated 27.6.2003. The petitioner, however, in his rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit has not even controverted this fact. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this application, inasmuch as, the petitioner’s entry through the Pairvi of the local M.L.A. on daily wages and his so-called appointment by the Civil Surgeon of Nawada district can have no sanction in the eye of law as they were based on fake and forged appointment letter. Admittedly, the petitioner had never undergone any selection process and, therefore, this Court will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner’s appointment itself was void, being in teeth of Article 14 & 16 to the Constitution of India. Such rank illegal appointment could not have conferred any 5 right on the petitioner and, therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court now for reinstatement on the ground of his being continued in service for eighteen years. The claim of the petitioner right from the inception was based on a forged/fake appointment letter and he would not be entitled for the benefit of his continuation of service based on such apparent forgery as was held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayn singh and others reported in (2009)5 SCC 65. This Court, therefore, would find no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rsh