1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15201 of 2006 NAGENDRA YADAV, S/O SRI RAM LOCHAN YADAV, R/O VILLAGE PHULWARI, POLICE STATION, MANIGACHHI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2.THE COMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI. 4.THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, GHOGHARDIHA, POLICE STATION GHOGHARDIHA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. .... .... Respondent/s 03 11.07.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner is for payment of his salary for the period from 01.09.1998 to 28.02.1999 and also from 01.09.1999 onwards on the basis of his claim that he was appointed as a class-IV employee on 21.12.1989 and was posted in the Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardiha, district Madhubani under the orders of the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. In this case counter affidavit has been filed with a copy thereof served on the counsel for the petitioner on 13.08.2008, wherein, it has been categorically asserted that the petitioner's claim of appointment was found to be based on a forged 2 document and that the petitioner was one of those 80 class-IV employees who had claimed to have been working in one Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardhiha, District Madhubani. It has also been asserted that there are only 20 sanctioned posts of class-IV employees in the aforesaid primary Health Centre and therefore, the Government had never recognized the services of the petitioner who was neither appointed in prescribed manner nor against sanctioned post. It has also been explained that whenever the petitioner was asked to produce his documents relating to his appointment etc, he had refused to produce them and as such the State Government and the Civil Surgeon had never taken cognizance of his services so as to give him benefit of payment of salary. It has to be noted that there is no rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner denying any of the aforementioned facts in the counter affidavit. It thus becomes clear that there is a dispute as with regard to the very appointment of the petitioner. Thus such a disputed question of fact relating to forgery or fake nature of the appointment of the petitioner whtout following the prescribed manner against an unsanctioned post cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 Even otherwise this Court having perused the materials on record produced by the petitioner including the alleged order of his appointment would find that at the time of the appointment of the petitioner, the prescribed manner of filling up of the post by way of advertisement and selection was never undergone. Such rank illegal appointment would not confer the petitioner any benefit of payment of salary as was held by full bench of this Court in the case of Rita Mishra and Ors vs Director of Primary Education, Bihar and Ors reported in 1987 PLJR 1090. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. RANJAN KUMAR/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)