IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9406 of 2006 PRAFULLA KUMAR CHAUDHARY s/o Sri Jagannath Prasad Chaudhary, resident of village- Thuma, P.S. Runni Saidpur, District- Samastipur. …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Director, Primary Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi. …… Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. and Mr. Ramakant Singh. For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G-II. 5 17.5.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the Office Order issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, dated 19.8.2006, as contained in Annexure- 29 to I.A.No. 3728 of 2006 filed in the present case. By the said order petitioner’s appointment has been terminated from the date of his appointment. Having heard learned counsel for the parties , this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner was appointed on 26.6.1995 (Annexure 3) as an Assistant Teacher in matric untrained scale. This appointment was pursuant to a recommendation made by the Divisional Establishment Committee after due selection. The grounds for terminating the petitioner’s appointment, as set forth, in the impugned order, are that matric untrained teacher could not be appointed in view of Government Circular of the 2 year 1977 and as such selection of the petitioner was itself wrong. The second ground was that the petitioner’s appointment made was not available in the dispatch register of the Regional Deputy Director of the said date and as such it appears to be a forged. The third ground was that the petitioner had been appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1990 for trained teachers. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that the appointment of petitioner is concerned, he was appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued in May, 1995 and not 1990. His date of appointment is 26.6.1995. He submits that though the Circular of the State Government of the year 1977 provided for appointment of trained teacher only, in 1991 there being shortage of teachers, the State Government revised its policy. It provided that untrained teachers also be appointed and upon their appointments they would be sent for training at government expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the requirement of appointment of trained teachers is thus stood abolished. The petitioner was therefore rightly appointed as untrained teachers and, in fact, thereafter he was sent for training, which he has completed. This negatived totally first and third grounds, as mentioned in the impugned order. What remains is the second ground. The petitioner has said that a mere reference to petitioner’s appointment letter i.e. Annexure 3 would show that its memo number is 209 (Go), dated 26.6.1995.This itself shows that this letter was issued through 3 confidential dispatch register. (Go) refers to Gopniya (Confidential). The order itself shows that the petitioner was being shown the dispatch register and not the confidential dispatch register. In the order it does not state that whether the petitioner’s interview letter has sent on 6.6.1995 (Annexure 2) was also forged or fictitious. It does not say that what was the consequence of the said selection process and whether the petitioner figured in the said selection process. Mere on this suspicion the very credential of petitioner’s appointment cannot be sustained. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter, in my view, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner must be accepted. So far as first and second grounds are concerned, on the face of it, they are nonest. No counter affidavit has been filed in spite of the fact that the matter has been adjourned several times for the same and the writ petition has been pending for almost six years. In my view, there being a subsequent Circular of the year 1991, which is not even referred to in the order of Regional Deputy Director, is sufficient to discard the first ground. So far as third ground is concerned, petitioner has clearly stated that it was pursuant to advertisement issued in May 1995, interview held in June, 1995 and he was appointed vide Annexure 3 and not pursuant to advertisement issued in 1990. Thus, the third ground is also nonest. 4 Now coming to the second ground, which casts a person about the validity of the appointment , in my view, Mr. Singh for the petitioner is correct. The order does not say that the interview letter was wrong or forged .The order does not say that no panel for appointment was made. The only thing it says that dispatch register does not contain memo number and the petitioner was not ready to see dispatch register, as such there is grave suspicion about the petitioner’s appointment. What was relevant to see was that the dispatch register. If, in fact, this was not so issued then Annexure 4 transferring the petitioner to another school by Regional Deputy Director would not have arisen . It was the same office that it appointed him. It is not stated that that order is also bad. A reference to that letter i.e. issued under memo no. 9681, dated 31.12.1996 (Annexure 4) would also show that it refers to the petitioner’s appointment letter as well. Thus, in my view, the finding in this regard is perverse and cannot be sustained. This, in fact, coupled with the fact that the petitioner was also sent for training at government expenses and has completed training also mitigate against the allegation of appointment being fraudulent. It is well settled that suspicion can not take place of true. Here apart from raising a suspicion even otherwise there is no proof of any forgery. In that view of the matter the second ground is also nonest. Thus, in my view, Annexure 29 cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and the petitioner would be held to be in service with all consequential benefits. 5 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)