IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3235 of 1998 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI, W/O SRI SUDHIR KUMAR SINHA, R/O MOHALLA RAJIVNAGAR, P.S PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT PATNA AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHERM MIDDLE SCHOOL, SAIDPUR MAHENDRU,PATNA. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, SECONDARY PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DY. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, PRIMARY SECONDARY & ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5.THE GEGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 6.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 7.BIHAR SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PATNA. 8.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA. 9.THE PRINCIPAL, DISTRICT EDUCATION TRAINING INSTITUTE, GOVINDPUR, DHANBAD. 10.THE HEADMISTRESS, MIDDLE SCHOOL SAIDPUR, MAHENDRU ANCHAL, PATNA. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 22.07.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board. In the considered opinion of this court, the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that her certificate of teachers training as produced by her at the time of appointment 2 was forged would hardly require interference from this Court especially when despite the petitioner having been given an opportunity by way of a show cause notice had failed to file her show cause reply. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on an earlier occassion the certificate in question, was declared to be genuine, will also be of no avail, inasmuch as, Bihar School Examination Board after full inquiry has found that it was the husband of the petitioner working as employee of Bihar School Examination Board, who was the man behind issuing of such certificate. To that extent it would be relevant to quote the report of the Bihar School Examination Board as contained in Annexure-D to the counter affidavit which is the basis for holding the certificate of training produced by the petitioner to be forged, reading as follows:- i=kad fu0@626 22-3-97 lsok esa] mi funs”kd ¼izk0 f”k0½ ls0] izkFkfed ,oa o;Ld f”k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk A fo’k;%& lkfo=h nsoh firk f”kouUnu izlkn] 3 lgk;d f”kf{kdk] jktdh; izkFkfed fo|ky; xkslkbZVksyk iVuk lnj ds f”k{kd izf”k{k.k ijh{kksRrh.kZ izek.k i= ,oa vad i= ds lR;kiu ds lEcU/k esa A egk”k;] mi;qZDr fo’k;d vkids i=kad 9@vk0 5&065@94 ls0izk0& 2561 fnukad 30-11-96 ds lEcU/k esa dguk gS fd Jherh lkfo=h nsoh ds fo:) eaf=eaMy ¼fuxjkuh½ foHkkx] 12,0 tokgjyky usg: ekxZ ¼csyh jksM½ iVuk] ds ek/;e ls izkIr ifjokn iUuksa ds vk/kkj ij bl fo’k; dh tkap dh x;h A tkap ds dze esa izkpk;Z] Jh fouksn dqekj d.kZ] ftyk f”k{kk ,oa izf”k{k.k laLFkku] xksfcUniqj] /kuckn tgka ls lkfo=h nsoh us izf”k{k.k izkIr djus dk izek.k izLrqr fd;k gS] iqNrkN dh x;h A lacaf/kr izkpk;Z us vius i=kad 11 fnukad 22-3-97 ¼izfrfyfi layXu½ ds }kjk lfefr dks lwfpr fd;k gS fd lkfo=h nsoh firk f”kouUnu izlkn bl egkfo|ky; ls f”k{kd izf”k{k.k ijh{kk 1972 ¼iwjd½ esa dzekad 54 ds vUrxZr lfEefyr ugha gqbZ Fkh muds egkfo|ky; ls 1972 ¼iwjd½ f”k{kd izf”k{k.k ijh{kk esa ek= dzekad 1 ls 53 rd ds gh Nk= ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gq;s Fks rFkk dqy 53 dks gh izos”k i= fuxZr fd;k x;k Fkk] lfefr }kjk tks dzkslfyLV egk& egkfo|ky; esa Hkstk x;k Fkk mlesa dzekad 1 ls 53 rd gh ijh{kkQy egkfo|ky; dks izkIr gqvk Fkk dzekad 54 lkfo=h nsoh dk uke vafdr gh ugha Fkk A vr% dzekad 54 ij lkfo=h nsoh dk uke vafdr gksus dk iz”u gh ugha mBrk A lfefr ds ewy vad fu;kstu iath esa Hkh izkFkfed f”k{kd f”k{kk egkfo|ky; xksfcUniqj ¼/kuckn½ ls dzekad 1 ls 53 rd gh ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds uke vafdr gSa A dzekad 54 lkfo=h nsoh dk uke eqfnzr gh ugha gS A lfefr ds f}rh;d vad fu;kstu iath esa tkylkth ds rgr dzekad 54 ij lkfo=h nsoh dk uke vafdr dj ijh{kkQy cuk;k x;k gS ,oa mUgsa izek.k i= fuxZr fd;k x;k gS A bl 4 tkylkth ds lansg esa lkfo=h nsoh ds ifr Jh lq/khj dqekj flUgk] tks lfefr esa lgk;d ds in ij dk;Zjr gSa dks foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ ds v/khu j[krs gq, tkap dh tk jgh gS A izkpk;Z] f”k{kd izf”k{k.k egkfo|ky; xksfcUniqj ds mi;qZDr i= ,oa lfefr ds ewy vad fu;kstu iath ds vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr gks x;k gS fd lkfo=h nsoh us fcuk f”k{kd izf”k{k.k izkIr fd;s gha f”k{kd izf”k{k.kksRrh.kZ dk izek.k i= ,d tkylkth ds rgr izkIr dj f”kf{kdk ds :i esa fu;qfDr izkIr dj yh gS A vr% bl tkylkth ds fy, Jherh lkfo=h nsoh lgk;d f”kf{kdk jktdh; izkFkfed fo|ky; xkslkbZVksyk] iVuk lnj ds fo:) vko”;d dkjZokbZ dh tk; A fo”oklHkktu] g0@& vLi’V ¼ch0 ,y0 cS”;U=h½ lfpo Kkikad % fu0 626@iVuk] fnukad 22 ekpZ] 1997- izfrfyfi %& {ks=h; f”k{kk mi funs”kd] iVuk izeaMy iVuk ,oa ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dk;kZFkZ izsf’kr A g0@& vLi’V lfpo From the reading of the said report, it would be crystal clear that it is the husband of the petitioner working in the Bihar School Examination Board who had played the dubious role in forging the certificate of his wife, the petitioner. In the writ application, the petitioner has described herself to be the wife of Sudhir Kumar, therefore, it would be difficult for 5 this Court to adjudicate whether there was two Sudhir Kumar one being her husband and the other being responsible for forging the certificate of the petitioner. Be that as it may, if the petitioner still believes that her teachers training certificate as issued by the Bihar School Examination Board is a genuine document, she may seek declaration before the Civil Court, inasmuch as, a proceeding under Article 226 it would be very difficult for this Court to decide the genuineness of the disputed document. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with the aforementioned liberty. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)