IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9787 of 2003 PHOOLAN DEO DWIVEDI, son of late Sri Chandra Dwivedi, resident of village Chorma, P.O. Basantpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Siwan … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra 4. The District Treasury Officer, Siwan, District Siwan 5. The Headmaster, Government Basic School, Shishwan, District Siwan … Respondents ----------- 5. 17.9.2010 Having heard Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State this Court would find that the amended prayer for quashing of the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the Director, Primary Education holding the appointment letter of the petitioner to be forged cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it would be difficult for this Court to either allow the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence or appraise them when there is also serious dispute that the petitioner’s name was ever included in the approved panel a copy whereof has been annexed in the counter affidavit by way of 2 Annexure ‘C’. It has to be noted that as per rules of appointment in the Basic School after the advertisement and preparation of a panel at the level of Regional Deputy Director of Education its approval has to be sought from the office of the Director, Primary Education and in such approved panel of 150 candidates the name of the petitioner does not figure. It is also not in doubt that the appointment letter of the petitioner was issued in isolation on 17.2.1991 whereas most of the appointment letters were already issued on 31.1.1991. Counsel for the petitioner in fact has tried to suggest that the name of the petitioner ought to have been at serial no.18 as per aggregate of marks secured by the petitioner in the matriculation examination and training examination. It would, however, be found that the name of the petitioner does not figure in what to say in the first 18 but even in the last 18. Moreover, this Court would find that the appointment from the said panel of 150 candidates was initially made on 31.1.1991 3 and thereafter only in the month of March, 1991, followed by a few in the month of November/ December, 1991. The report of the R.D.D.E, Saran Division, contained in Annexure ‘E’ dated 5th June, 1992 soon after completion of process of appointment of 150 teachers as per the approved panel also does not contain the name of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a communication of the year 1998, letter No. G5/98 concerning one Kumar Amarendra and informing that the dispatch register of the year 1991 was not available would not go in favour of the petitioner, especially when such dispatch register was looked into by the Director, Primary Education in the case of the petitioner himself in an order dated 26th February, 1993 wherein it was held by the Director, Primary Education that he having perused from the dispatch register had found that no such appointment letter was ever issued in the name of the petitioner. Thus subsequent missing of the dispatch register after 26th February, 1993 would not again go 4 in favour of the petitioner when it was his case that the order was recorded that no such appointment letter was issued in the name of the petitioner from the dispatch register of the appointing authority, namely, R.D.D.E. Annexures ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘E’, therefore, would be a settler on the issue of genuineness of the alleged appointment letter of the petitioner and since the name of the petitioner did not find place in either the approved panel dated 6.10.1990/ 11.12.1990 nor in the report of the R.D.D.E. dated 5th June, 1992 (Annexure ‘E’) and finally in the order of the Director, Primary Education dated 6th February, 1983, the obvious conclusion would be that Annexure 10, the appointment letter produced by the petitioner, is a forged document. At this stage counsel for the petitioner would point out that a similarly situated person, namely, Shambhu Singh, whose name also did not find place in the list of 150 candidates and for whom also a similar order holding his appointment letter to be forged was passed, had ultimately got the relief by filing a title suit in view of 5 the observation made by this Court that such claim could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. This Court is not aware of the facts of the case of Shambhu Singh but then if the petitioner feels that he can still establish his case by filing a title suit where the parties will have the opportunity to lead their evidence, this order dismissing the writ application of the petitioner will not stand in the way and in fact will not prejudice the petitioner in deciding his civil suit. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the civil suit now being filed after more than five years of the last impugned order dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure 27) would be barred by limitation and therefore, this Court should at least observe for condoning the delay in filing of the civil suit. In the opinion of this Court such prayer is absolutely misconceived, inasmuch as the filing of suit is specifically governed by the principles of Limitation Act and if the petitioner finds that he has justified grounds in filing an application 6 under section 14 of the Limitation Act it is definitely expected to be dealt by the concerned court in accordance with law. Subject to the aforementioned observation, this application must be and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/