IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14699 of 2007 ARUN KUMAR, aged about 21 years, son of late Upendra Narayan Mandal & Smt. Sushila Devi, resident of village Amri, P.O. Amri Bihanpur, P.S. Bihpur, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Director (Handloom and Sericulture), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Assistant Director Industries (Sericulture), Bhagalpur 5. D.M. cum Collector, Bhagalpur … Respondents ----------- 2. 11.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the respondent authorities on a ground that he had submitted a forged certificate of his educational qualification. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as a matter of fact such plea will be of no avail, inasmuch as one certificate declaring the petitioner to have passed Class VIII and said to be forged is not to be relied in view of the fact that the petitioner had already passed his matriculation examination in the year 2002. To that extent he would rely on Annexure 4, 2 the marks sheet issued by the Bihar School Examination Board and also photo copy of the matriculation certificate dated 16th September, 2002, a photo copy whereof has been produced by the counsel for the petitioner and is being kept on record. There are certain revealing aspects in this case, the first being that when the petitioner had filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground in the prescribed proforma vide Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit on 3.12.2005 declaring his age to be 18 years 2 months and 7 days he had shown his date of birth to be 15.9.1987. The petitioner had also declared the name of his father as late Upendra Narayan Mandal but the matriculation certificate which has been produced by the counsel for the petitioner would go to show that not only the date of birth of the petitioner recorded therein was 15th February, 1988 but also that his father’s name was Upendra Prasad Mandal. In that view of the matter this Court would not give any credence on the matriculation certificate and the marks sheet produced by the petitioner for the first time before 3 this Court which was never sought to be relied by him while filing the application for compassionate appointment on 3.12.2005 even when he had allegedly passed the matriculation certificate in the year 2002 and had also a copy of his certificate dated 16th September, 2002. In this light when this Court goes into the other aspect it finds that the certificate which was produced by the petitioner in support of his claim to have passed Class VIII being a transfer certificate allegedly issued by the Middle School, Pain (Sultanganj) has been declared to be forged by the Headmaster of the School who in his communication to the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur has straightway denied either with regard to the petitioner being admitted in the school or to have been ever issued the said School Leaving Certificate. It is this aspect of the matter which has been further verified by the District Superintendent of Education in his separate report submitted to the Deputy Director of Industries dated 4.1.2007. Once, therefore, the authorities 4 had reason to believe that the petitioner has sought to obtain appointment on compassionate ground by producing a forged certificate, their decision to lodge the First Information Report against the petitioner also does not suffer from any error. In view of the fact that the petitioner has now been made accused in a criminal case relating to forgery in the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, this Court would not find the present case to be a fit case for issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. This Court has also gone into the aspect that the deceased employee had left behind only two dependents, namely, the widow and the petitioner as his only son. The amount that was paid to the family was also sufficient to sustain the two persons and therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, it has to be held that 5 the condition of the family of the petitioner was not one of penury which required the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground. For all these reasons, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/