IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11667 OF 2007 MAHENDRA SHARMA, S/O LATE BANWARI SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE MURWAN, POLICE STATION GOH, DISTRICT AURANGABAD, AT PRESENT ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, GOH, POLICE STATION AND POST OFFICE GOH, DISTRICT AURANGABAD (BIHAR). …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. 4.THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. 5.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD, TOWN AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD(BIHAR). 6.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, AURANGABAD, TOWN AND DISTRICT AURANGBABAD (BIHAR). 7.THE BLOCK EDUCATIONAL EXTENSION OFFICER, GOH, TOWN AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 8.SMT. PANNA KUMARI, W/O AYODHYA YADAV, INCHARGE HEADMISTRESS, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, GOH, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION GOH, TOWN AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 9.SMT. GEETA KUMARI, W/O AWADHASH SHARMA, ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, GOH, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION GOH, TOWN AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD (BIHAR). ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 08.11.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “For issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why C.B.I inquiry is ordered forthwith in regard to Respondent No. 8 and 9, as 2 they are working in the school in collusion with Respondent No. 6 and 7 on the basis of forged, fabricated and fake educational as well as training certificates. Further Respondent No. 7 is misappropriating the Government fund for the development of school for his own personal use.” Mr. Kamla Prasad Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that both respondent no. 8 and 9 are not only working in Government institution on a fake educational certificate but in fact there is also an allegation of embezzlement of Government fund by them, while continuing in government service. Mr. Arshad Alam, counsel for the State on the other hand would submit that not a single document has been annexed by the petitioner to substantiate his aforementioned grievance against alleged illegal appointment and continuation as so called financial mismanagement of fund by respondent no. 8 and 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, whenever a writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging certain facts the 3 onus to prove such fact also lies on his head. Reference in this connection may be made to judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181. Here in this case when the petitioner claims that respondent no. 8 and 9 are said to have obtained their appointment on fake/forged educational qualification certificate. Had the petitioner produced such a certificate allegedly issued by the Authority, in favour of Respondent no. 8 and 9, this Court could have called upon the official Respondents to make their verification and also take stringent action against respondent no. 8 and 9. If their such certificate was found to be forged. The rest of the submission of Mr. Roy that since the petitioner has filed a representation, the same may be directed to be disposed of is to be noted only for its being rejected, inasmuch as, creation of a fresh course of action for revival of a state matter by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by giving direction for disposal of a 4 representation has been recently seriously deprecated by the Apex Court. The petitioner in fact alleges criminal misconduct as also forgery and fraud on the part of respondent no. 8 and 9. He also claims financial embezzlement and misappropriation of Government fund by caused by them. This Court however cannot entertain such plea in absence of any valid material to showing criminal misconduct on the part of respondent no. 8 and 9. The petitioner cannot make this writ application a tool for launching roving enquiry for initiating the C.B.I inquiry against Respondent no. 8 and 9. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)