Letters Patent Appeal No.1173 OF 2000 ----- Against the order/judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2000 Passed in C.W.J.C.No. 3341 of 1999. ------ MANOJ KUMAR SON OF PROF. RAM AYODHYA DWIVEDI RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PROFESSOR COLONY,POLICE STATION KALAMBAGH,DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ------ APPELLANT Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE,GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 2.DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE,GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3.DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 4.DISTRICT LEPROSY ERADICATION OFFICER, DUMKA 5.INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, LEPROSY EDUCATION UNIT, CHAS ----- RESPONDENTS ---- FOR THE APPELLANT : MR.BANWARI SHAARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE INTERVENOR : MR.DHANANJAY KUMAR FOR THE STATE : MR.SUNIL KUMAR MANDAL,SC 15 MR.BIPIN KUMAR, AC TO SC 15 ----- P R E S E N T ---- THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA ---- S.K.Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 24.07.2000 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 3341 of 1999 by learned Single Judge whereby the prayer of the present appellant was rejected because the writ court found that the appellant was appointed on the post meant for most backward class whereas he belongs to general category. By the said order/judgment, the prayer of two other petitioners namely, Smt.Aarati and Md.Sajjad Alam, was allowed because their cases were different from the case of the present appellant. An advertisement dated 12.12.1991 was published for appointment on the post of Physiotherapists from the 2 eligible candidates who were having Diploma in Physiotherapist. Five persons including the petitioners were appointed by the Director-in-Chief and they joined their place of posting. Subsequently, Director-in-Chief issued show cause notice to the present appellant and other two petitioners named above asking them that they have obtained their appointments by committing fraud. Show cause was replied and thereafter their services were terminated. The said three persons including the appellant challenged the order of their termination. It was stated about the appellant that he is a person of general category and his appointment was against the post meant for most backward category. No candidate placed above him in the merit list came to challenge his appointment. It was not the case of other two petitioners. They were appointed against their own quota. So their appointment was found to be correct and their prayer was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The prayer of the appellant was refused and it was noted in the order/judgment that that he has committed fraud in obtaining appointment against the post reserved for most backward category though he belongs to general category. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he has worked for considerably a longer time and there was no complaint against his working. The post is still vacant and many candidates having intervened in the writ petition have stated that they have relinquished the post. So the appellant prays that direction may be given to appoint him on the post in question because nobody has been appointed after his termination. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the 3 case of The State of Bihar through the Secretary,Govt.of Bihar, in the Department of Energy, Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna and others Vrs. Indra Mohan Rai reported in 2009(2) PLJR 869 and argument has been advanced that the termination in this case was without following the procedure under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner and the impugned order requires no interference by this Court. The appointments are being made as per terms of advertisement. The advertisement has indicated the post belongs to each category against which the appointment was to be made. It is not the case of the appellant that he belongs to most backward category. The appellant has not been able to explain as to under what circumstances he got himself appointed on the post meant for most backward category though he belongs to general category. This fraud alone was sufficient for termination of service of the appellant and it was a correct approach. Considering the circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the appellant has not been able to make out a case that his appointment was correct. Hence, the order of the writ court is correct and needs no interference. Thus, the appeal is meritless and is dismissed. ( Shyam Kishore Sharma,J. ) Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ. I agree. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ.) Patna High Court,Patna The 11th November,2009 Tahir(NAFR)