IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11810 of 2006 RAJ KISHORE PRASAD, son of late Shiya Sharan Prasad, resident of village Toral Bigha, (Tal Bigha), P.O. Pasanghi, P.S. Ekangarsarai, District Nalanda (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna 3. Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Bihar, Patna 4. Project Convenor (Nalkup Department), Minor Irrigation, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna 5. District Magistrate, Nalanda 6. Executive Engineer (Minor Irrigation), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda 7. Assistant Engineer (Nalkup Division), Minor Irrigation, Ekangar Sarai (Nalanda) … Respondents ----------- 4. 29.3.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner in this writ application prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents for appointing him on the post of Peon in Water Resources (Minor Irrigation) Department. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the petitioner was not found entitled and eligible for a Class III post on account of cancellation of his result of Praveshika from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, the respondents ought to have considered his case for a Class IV post of Peon for which he was possessing requisite 2 qualification. In this context learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that the allegation against the petitioner of filing a forged Praveshika certificate seems to be one out of confusion, inasmuch as the Registrar of the Vidyapeeth had himself communicated that the result of the examination in question, in which the petitioner had appeared, was cancelled on account of mass copying of all the students. He has, therefore, submitted that when the criminal case filed by the respondents also led to clean acquittal of the petitioner as would be evidenced from the judgment of the trial court dated 31.1.2006 in Trial No. 1668/2005 (Annexure 6), the respondents were duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on a Class IV post. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has pointed out that whatever be communication of the Registrar of the Vidyapeeth or the judgment of the trial court, the same cannot get precedence over the enquiry made by the Executive Engineer, 3 wherein he was informed by the Registrar of Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar that the certificate produced by the petitioner was never issued from Hindi Vidyapeeth. It has to be noted that the said examination was held in the year 1998 and its result was cancelled on account of mass copying. The father of the petitioner had died on 6.11.1998 and the petitioner had produced the certificate of Hindi Vidyapeeth. If the petitioner was aware of the fact that the result of the said examination was cancelled, even if his case is believed that he had a valid certificate which was subsequently cancelled, he owed a duty to inform the authority to whom he had given such certificate that he no longer possessed the qualification of Praveshika for appointment on the said post. He did not do so and in fact he left it for the authorities to discover and the authorities as per Annexure ‘C’, the communication of the Registrar of Hindi Vidyapeeth, had found that the said certificate was never issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth showing the petitioner to have passed the Praveshika examination. 4 In that view of the matter, this Court would not rely on a subsequent letter of the Assistant Registrar which seems to be a self created document and the authenticity whereof becomes doubtful, inasmuch as the same is addressed to the petitioner in the date of 17.3.2003 whereas the Registrar of the University in his communication way back on 28.1.2003 had already communicated about non-issuance of such certificate. It is, therefore, evident that Annexure 5 has been obtained/ procured document only to fill up the gaps after the petitioner came to know that the Registrar of the University had straightway denied to issue certificate of the petitioner having passed Praveshika examination. Such conduct of the petitioner by itself would disentitle him for being appointed in Government service on any ground much less on compassionate ground. Additionally, this Court would find that the judgment in the criminal trial dated 31.1.2006 in absence of any evidence was delivered by holding that there was no material for holding the petitioner guilty. On the basis of such judgment of the 5 criminal court this Court cannot hold that the petitioner had not committed the misconduct of producing a false/forged certificate which was in fact never issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth. The father of the petitioner had died way back in the year 1998 and it is now almost 13 years in which the family of the deceased employee has survived. Since the petitioner at appropriate point of time was found ineligible and unfit for the Class-III post claimed by him in his application for appointment on compassionate ground there would be no need now to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on Class IV post. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/