IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6571 of 2007 Manjula Pandey, D/o Sri Krishna Ballabh Pandey, wife of Sri Ayodhya Pandey, resident of Village Pipra, P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Nawada. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Nawada. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Nawada. 6. The Block Development Officer, Govindpur Prakhand, Dist. Nawada. 7. The Block Education Extension officer, Govindpur Prakhand, Dist. Nawada. 8. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 15.09.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that out of the following prayers:- “1(I) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the Memo No.252 dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure-6) issued by District Magistrate, Nawada (Respondent No.4) whereby whereunder an exparte order has been given to the Block Development Officer, Govindpur (Respondent No.6) to prosecute the petitioner for submitting the mark-sheet of Madhyama examination which was wrongly been declared to be forged by the respondents for appointment as Prakhand Shikshak in Teachers’ Appointment 2007. (II) For issuance of writ of a mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Prakhand Shikshak in connection 2 with Teachers’ Appointment 2007 as the mark-sheet of the petitioner’s Madhyama examination has wrongly declared to be forged.” the petitioner has voluntarily given up the prayer no. (I), as quoted above, this Court would find it difficult to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to now appoint the petitioner on the post of Prakhand Shikshak for which the exercise has already been completed. It has to be kept in mind that when the petitioner had filed his application for the post of Prakhand Shikshak, his mark-sheet was found to be forged and led to the impugned order of the Collector of the district directing the authorities to institute a First Information Report against the petitioner. Such order having been passed on 6.2.2007, the petitioner had approached the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for supply of his mark-sheet and the mark-sheet, which has been ultimately given to him on 23.2.2007, definitely is not the same mark-sheet, which was filed by him before the authority in the year 2006 for appointment on Prakhand Shikshak. In that view of the matter, after the whole exercise of appointment of the year 3 2006-07 for appointment of Prakhand Shikshak has been completed, no direction can now be issued to the respondents to appoint a person like the petitioner in whose cases, he was found to be guilty of producing a forged mark-sheet for appointment in the Government service. Nonetheless, if the petitioner can satisfy the authorities in the subsequent selection that such mark-sheet produced by him, which was declared to be forged, was not on account of his complicity and that the issuance of the mark-sheet was a careless exercise of power by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, which had ultimately rectified its mistake by issuing a fresh mark-sheet to the petitioner on 23.2.2007, the authorities, while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on any post of Teacher, would consider the same after having clarified the issue with Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)