IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9376 of 1997 ARVIND KUMAR SUMAN son of Sri Ram Prasasd Yadav, resident of village and P.O. Balam, P.S. and District Madhepura. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kosi Division, Saharsa. 4.The District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura, District Madhepura. ----------- 6 27.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this writ application is directed against the termination of service of the petitioner on totally wrong ground vide memo bearing No.2041-3 dated 16.8.1997 issued under the signature of the Respondent- District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura and further for payment of all arrears of salary with compound interest.” Counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that the impugned order is classic example of non application of mind, inasmuch as, even when the respondent District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura (D.S.E) had not been in a position to find the relevant files and/or the document, his conclusion that the petitioner was continuing in service on forged letter was itself unsustainable. In this context, counsel for the petitioner had also raised the plea of violation of principles of natural justice in course of passing of the impugned order. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein 2 the respondents have explained the whole thing in paragraph nos. 4 to 6 which for the sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow:- “4.That it is further submitted that after receiving the said complaint petition the matter regarding the said illegal appointment came in to the knowledge of different officials and thereafter the department came in to motion and verification has came in to motion and verification has become initiated in different level. After adequate verification the complaint was found true and ultimately the matter was put in the meeting of the District Establishment Committee on 18.7.1997 and after going through concerning documents the committee resolved to terminate the petitioner from service and accordingly vide letter no.2041/51 Madhepura dt. 16.8.1997 the petitioner has been terminated and Area Education Officer Uda Kishunganj has been directed to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner for illegal appointment on the basis of forged appointment letter and for the withdrawal of payment made on the basis of forged appointment letter. 5.That it is further submitted that the petitioner while he was in service had submitted papers claiming therein that vide letter no. 98-3 confidential dt. 17.7.93 the claim for payment of his salary was allowed vide letter no. 3071 dt.8.12.92 w.e.f. 16.7.1993. In this connection it is relevant to mention here that the said letter number‟s office copy is not available in the office. It is also relevant to submit here that as per departmental letter no.3071 dt. 8.12.92 only 63 teachers have been allowed for payment of their salary in which the petitioner name is not mentioned. 6.That it is further submitted that list of 63 and 35 teachers have also been submitted in the office of D.D.C. Madhepura for the order of payment of salary in which the name of the petitioner is also not mentioned. Hence from the above mentioned fact it is crystal clear that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of forged papers in collusion with then officials. So it has rightly been adjudicated by the D.E.C. for his termination and to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner.” Let it be noted that in these paragraphs whatever has been stated are only indicative of the fact that there was some sort 3 of complaint against illegal continuation of large number of teachers in Madhepura district and therefore such teachers were given opportunity to produced all original documents as would be evident from Annexure-6, letter of D.S.E. Madhepura dated 5th February, 1997 which reads as follows:- i=kad 201&6 izs"kd] Jh vthr dqekj ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] e/ksiqjkA lsok esa] Jh jkt dqekj xqIrk] l0 f'k0 e0 fo0 r:.ks'ojiqj eqjyhxat ^^vHk; dq0 vej ** ^^vjfoUn dqekj lqeu l0 f'k0 e0 fu0 /kqfj;k dyklu] pkSlk Jherh js[kk dqekjh l0 f'k0 e0 fu0 >ykjh] mnk ^^la;qDrk dqekjh ** e/ksiqjk fnukad 5 Qjojh& 97 fo"k;& voS/k fu;qfDr i= ds vk/kkj ij ljdkjh lsok esa jgus ds QyLo:Ik lsok lekIr djus ds laca/k esA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 2664&5 fnukad 26-12-96 i=kad 2687&4 fnukad 31&12&96 ,oa i=kad 2663&5 fnukad 26-12-96 ds }kjk vkils fof/kor fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa fnukad 6-1-97 dks mifLFkr gksdj lk{; izLrqr djus funs'k fn;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq mDr fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks u vki Lo;a mifLFkr gq, vkSj u viuh fof/kor fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr fd, gSa blls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkidks viuh fof/kor fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa dqN ugha dguk gSA vr,o vkidks viuh fof/kor fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; miyC/k gS rks i= izkfIr ds rhu fnuksa ds Hkhrj viuk 14- 2-97 rd Lo;a v/kksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksdj lk{; izLrqr djsa vU;Fkk vkidh lsok dks voS/k ekurs gq, lsok lekIr ekuh tk;sxhA ;g vkidks vafre Lekj i= fn;k tk jgk gSA fo'oklHkktu vthr dqekj ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] e/ksiqjkA From reading of the aforementioned document as contained in Annexure-6, it would be more than clear that the petitioner and similarly situated other teachers were given liberty to produce and/or opportunity to place their relevant materials with regard to their correctness of appointment and continuation in 4 service, but they did not choose to avail such opportunity by producing the documents and/or their defence. A plea, of course, has been taken in the writ petition that some of the letters were not received by the petitioner, but then receipt of Annexure-6 at least is a admitted fact as the same has been produced by the petitioner himself. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself. Even otherwise this Court is satisfied that the appointment of the petitioner could not have been sustained, inasmuch as, claim of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Managing Committee of a Private School in the year, 1970 is also falsified as the said School was taken over by the State Government in the year, 1976. The Services of the petitioner were not taken over in terms of section 4 of the said Act as there is no notification produced by the petitioner showing such take over of service. The only letter which has been produced by the petitioner is the letter of District Superintendent of Education as contained in Annexure-8/3 dated 17th July, 1993 by which an order for payment of salary w.e.f. 16.7.93 has been issued but letter of Secretary dated 8.12.92 has been held to be in respect of only 63 teachers as in the impugned order name of the petitioner did not figure. Therefore, it becomes clear that the name of the petitioner was not included in the letter of Secretary. There is no evidence of the services of the petitioner being taken over at the time of take over of the school. The claim 5 of continuation of the petitioner in service is said to be based on a forged letter no. 3871 dated 8.12.92. Unfortunately, the original or the copy of such letter also has not been produced by the petitioner in the writ petition and/or interlocutory application and therefore in the opinion of this Court when there is categorical finding in the impugned order that there was no direction for payment of salary of the petitioner either from the Secretary of the Education Department or from the D.D.C. Madhepura, it would automatically lead to a conclusion that the State Government had never recognized services of the petitioner even after take over of the school and it is in this background that a direction for lodging First Information report against the petitioner for continuing in service on the basis of forged letter has been also given. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be in a position to decide with regard to such forged and fraudulent appointment as was held by this Court in the case of „Reeta Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors’ reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. 1090, wherein it was held that there would be no necessity of holding an enquiry about the allegation of invalid and/or fraudulent appointment of a teacher. In the present case when school was taken over, the services of 76 to 92 teachers were also taken over. There is however no document to show that the service of the petitioner was ever taken over. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the letter of D.S.E. of the year 1993 Annexure 8/3 would be of no avail inasmuch as in the said 6 letter also the name of the petitioner did not find place. Considering all these aspects, this Court would find that this writ application seeking a declaration for validity of appointment and continuation of the petitioner on a forged document is not maintainable and therefore this Court would not interfere with the impugned order doing away with forged appointment of the petitioner. In the result, there is no merit in this application and same is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)