IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8381 of 2005 SURESH PASWAN Son of Sri Lagan Paswan, permanent resident of Village- Nembaudauli, P.S. Punpun (Pipra), District- Patna, at present resident at Villlage- Naharpur Mukundpur, P.S. Jandaha, District- Vaishali -------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Muzaffarpur 4. District Education Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur 5. Headmaster, Rajkiyakrit Sri Raghunandan Ishwariya Singh Uchcha Vidyalaya, Narharpur Mukundpur, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali ------------------------Respondents ----------- 13. 25.3.2009 The writ petition has been filed for payment of arrears and current salary of the petitioner from June, 1997 on the post of peon in Rajkiyakrit Sri Raghunandan Ishwariya Singh Uchcha Vidyalaya, Narharpur Mukundpur, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali. A counter affidavit was filed that the petitioner has made his claim on the basis of a forged and fabricated appointment letter. It is claimed that the letter was not issued from the department and there is no recommendation of the Divisional Level Committee of the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur for appointment of the petitioner. It is also stated on behalf of the State that in fact there was no vacant post and the petitioner is not entitled to payment of salary on the basis of forged and fabricated letter against a non-existent post. This Court after giving several opportunities to the petitioner and the State finally called for the record to verify whether Annexure-1 dated 8.6.95, the letter calling the petitioner for interview and Annexure-2 dated 27.6.1995 alleged letter of appointment were genuine and were in fact issued from the - 2 - office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division. On examination of the dispatch register this Court has not found any Memo No/ letter no. 18 dated 8.6.1995 issued to the petitioner. In fact it has been stated that the sole letter issued on 8.6.1995 is with respect to a letter of transfer. Similarly, the dispatch register does not show that a letter was in fact issued on 27th June 1995 from the office of the R.D.D.E., Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(10) Supreme Court Cases, 282 (Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) in which the Court has considered that merely on the basis of looking into the register, this Court cannot conclude that the appointments were fake and therefore enquiry has to be made into the actual nature of the order or letter of appointment issued to the appellant. In the present case disciplinary action has already been taken against the R.D.D.E who had issued such letters and he has been duly punished. It is submitted that the signature of the R.D.D.E. is not denied by the respondents State. The signature of the R.D.D.E. would have some relevance only if prima facie the petitioner was able to raise doubt with respect to the order issued in his favour showing that he was duly appointed. In this case there is no trace whatsoever of the appointment letter in any records of the department and in view of the submission that the appointment was made and recorded in a dispatch register maintained by the R.D.D.E. at his resident, this Court cannot direct that the present signature of the R.D.D.E. whether genuine or - 3 - not would give any benefit to the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner was appointed by the competent authority or validly appointed and is entitled to payment of salary. Learned counsel, however, emphasizes the fact that there appears to be a register maintained by the R.D.D.E. in his house by which the R.D.D.E. Tirhut Division has made appointment of several persons. It is submitted that a number of persons are working on the basis of such appointment letters. It is difficult for the Court to envisage a situation in which the R.D.D.E would maintain a separate register for the purpose of making appointment and passing various order at his residence and any such register or orders would obviously be illegal and beyond the provisions of the Education Code or Conduct of business of the State Government. Moreover the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner can only be examined if such reports are received by the State Government regarding such illegal and under hand appointment and it would not be proper on the basis of submissions before this Court to enter into this fact. Even if such illegal appointees are working in the Education Department, this Court would loathe to perpetuate an illegal Act by passing an order condoning such an illegality. In the result, the writ application is dismissed. The record is returned to the State counsel. P. Kumar (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)