IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.1243 OF 2005. MOST. PASPATI DEVI, W/O SRINATH MALI R/O VILLAGE BARUA, P.S RAGHUNATHPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CHAPRA. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SIWAN. 5.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN. 6.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ------------------ 14/ 22.12.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The original petitioner prior to his death on 08.04.2005 has filed this writ application on 25.01.2005 assailing the order dated 09.12.2004, whereby and whereunder, he was dismissed from service as also was subjected to criminal proceedings for obtaining appointment by playing fraud and producing a forged training certificate. During the pendency of this writ application when the petitioner had died, his wife, the present petitioner was substituted and the Principal Secretary to the Education 2 Department was directed to consider the aspect as to whether the substituted petitioner will be entitled for grant of pension in view of completion of 23 years of service by the original petitioner. The competent Authority has passed his order on 09.08.2011 rejecting such claim for payment of retirement benefit to the substituted petitioner, which has also been assailed by the substituted petitioner in I.A no. 6312 of 2011. As the challenge to the subsequent order passed by the Principal Secretary of Education Department dated 09.08.2011 is in continuation of the relief sought by the original petitioner, this Court would allow the prayer for amendment in the writ petition and accordingly I.A No. 6312 of 2011 is allowed. The long and short of this case is that the original petitioner came to be appointed as a teacher in a Basic School. For appointment of a teacher in such Basic School, the qualification of being a trained teacher is compulsory. The original petitioner had also projected that he had 3 undergone and completed Teachers Training Course but in course of inquiry it was found that neither the original petitioner was a trained hand nor the certificate produced by him was genuine. In fact a finding was arrived that the certificate of training produced by the original petitioner was forged. From the impugned order dated 09.12.2004, it is absolutely clear that Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra had given adequate opportunity to the original petitioner to produce his original training certificate but despite such opportunity given to him, he did not chose to produce that certificate. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order specially when the original petitioner had also not produced the copy of the alleged training certificate on the basis of which he is said to have been appointed as a teacher in the basic School. Once this aspect would become clear that the services of the original petitioner was obtained by him by playing 4 fraud and his such appointment came to be cancelled, there would be no question of payment of any retirement benefit to his widow, the substituted petitioner. This Court therefore does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary of the Education Department on 09.08.2011. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)