IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11496 of 2005 SACHIDANAND CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 13.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Reference may be made to the order of this Court dated 17.3.2008, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow : “Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit giving correct name of his father and also annex a photocopy of Annexure 4 as also any proof to establish that his appointment in the post of Clerk and its approval by the Madhyamik Shiksha Board was made on the basis of Madhyama certificate (Annexure 1). The petitioner will also state in the said affidavit as to whether he had studied in R.B.High School, Jamalpur at any point of time of his educational career and if yes, he should give full details thereof. Once such an affidavit is filed, a copy thereof will be made available to the counsel for the State who will take instruction and will not file a supplementary counter affidavit but would 2 also produce the documents/ records on the basis of which the order dated 19.2.1993 (Annexure 4) was issued and subsequently it was held in the impugned order dated 9.4.2005 (Annexure 9) that the petitioner‟s appointment on the post of Clerk in Sanjay Gandhi Balika Uchcha Vidalaya, Biswaspur in the district of Bhagalpur was made on the basis of matriculation certificate and not a Madhyama certificate.” Pursuant to the aforementioned order the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit and the respondents have also filed a supplementary counter affidavit. While the petitioner on the basis of averment made and the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit would contend that the appointment of the petitioner at the time of its being approved by the Board of Directors, Secondary Education, was equivalent to matriculation, counsel for the State with regard to the same notification by producing another copy thereof by way of Annexure „F‟ would make this Court to believe that actually approval of the services of the petitioner was made 3 treating him to have passed as Matric alone. Counsel for the petitioner in fact in order to wriggle out the situation has referred to a large number of other documents but again their relevance and/or credibility is not beyond doubt inasmuch as counsel for the State has also effectively filed a series of documents to controvert the said stand of the petitioner. It thus becomes clear that this is a very complicated question of fact which cannot be effectively gone into within the limited parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution. It would be very difficult for this Court to say as to whether the notification dated 19.2.1983, vide Annexure 4 to the writ application, the copy in fact is also produced by way of Annexure „F‟ in the supplementary counter affidavit is a genuine document inasmuch as the document which has been produced by the petitioner contains under the column of qualification against the name of the petitioner „Matric Samtulya‟, whereas same document as produced by the counsel for the State contains only „Matric‟ and the tragedy is that it is very 4 difficult to analyze whether the word „Samtulya‟ was originally printed or not. This being a purely disputed question of fact, it would not be prudent exercise of power to interfere with the impugned order specially when there is a specific allegation in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has produced interpolated and/or forged document. Counsel for the petitioner in fact himself submits that it would be proper for the petitioner to withdraw this writ application to enable him to file a civil suit to get the dispute resolved for once and ever. In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/