WP(C) 1006/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA None appears for the petitioner on call. It appears that on 3.3. 2011 also, when the matter was taken up, nobody appeared for the petitioner. I h ave heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay salary to her since 1995 pursuant to her pur ported appointment as Assistant Teacher in Bowarghat M.E. School under Hailakand i vide appointment letter dated 31.3.1995. There is no explanation as to why the writ petition was filed after 15 years of such appointment and non-payment of s alary. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director of Elementary Edu cation, Assam, it has been stated that the very appointment of the petitioner is the product of fraud. It has been stated that on a plain reading of the appoint ment letter annexed to the writ petition (Annexure-1), it is evident that there is no mention as to under which Education Block the particular ME School is situ ated. It has also been stated that on a query being made, the District Elementar y Education Officer, Hailakandi has informed that the particular school falls un der Lala Block under the control of the District Elementary Education Officer, H ailakandi. It has also been stated that as per the list submitted by the Headmas ter of the school, there is no teacher in the name of the petitioner. On inspect ion of the school by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi on 20 .3.2010, it was found that no person by the name of the petitioner had ever join ed in the school. The Headmaster of the school has also filed an affidavit, in whi ch it has been stated that the petitioner is not a teacher of the said school. A s per the school records, no such person is working in the school. It has also b een stated that Annexure-A to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner w as never issued by the Headmaster and thus the signature appearing in the said d ocument is a forged one. From the above and in absence of any reply affidavit of the peti tioner, falsification of document by the petitioner is prima facie apparent on t he face of the records. Perhaps, it is because of this reason, the petitioner ha s chosen not to appear in the case. For all the aforesaid reason, there is no merit in the writ peti tion and accordingly it is dismissed. The authority in the Education Department is directed to lodge formal FIR with the jurisdictional police station in respec t of the allegation made against the petitioner. Upon lodging of such FIR, the j urisdictional police station shall carry out necessary investigation and the con sequences thereof will follow in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. P.N. Goswami, learn ed Standing Counsel, Education Department for his necessary follow up action.