1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10555 of 2006 ============================================= Bipin Bihari Gupta, son of late Hazari Prasad Gupta, resident of Mohalla Chanpatia Bazar, Ward No.6, resident of Mohalla Chanpatia Bazar, Ward No.6, P.S. Chanpatia, District West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Reginal Deputy Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. 6. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bagha-1, West Champaran. .... .... Respondents ============================================= 5 13-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the prayer has been made by the petitioner to quash the order of termination of his service dated 7.2.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on ad-hoc basis on the post of Vaccinator on 1.10.1985 by the In-charge Medical Officer of Primary Health Center, Bagha and approval of such appointment of the petitioner was accorded by the Civil Surgeon on 28.7.1987. The petitioner claims that having continued for a period of over seventeen years, he was again subjected to some sort of enquriy, whereafter, the impugned order was passed terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was fake and forged. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such findings of the authority in the impugned order is based on no evidence and in fact it cannot be said that the order of appointment of the petitioner duly issued by the In- charge Medical Officer on 31.12.1985 was forged appointment though it may be said to be an irregular appointment. 2 Noticing the aforementioned submissions, this Court had on 29.6.2011 had given liberty to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit giving full details of his qualification at the time of his appointment as also the proof of the fact that the post in question was advertised even by way of notice on the notice board and he was subjected to some sort of selection process as was claimed by him in his explanation submitted to the authority vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. In fact, while doing so, this Court had also taken into account the specific stand of the respondents in the impugned order that when the petitioner was given notice to produce his order of appointment and other related documents, he had failed to produce even a chit of paper in support of his appointment. The petitioner despite indulgence given by this Court on 29.6.2011 and 4.7.2011 to produce the required aforesaid documents and/or information, has failed to do so and the learned counsel for the petitioner today has shown his inability to comply the orders of this court.. It thus becomes clear that the entire basis of the appointment of the petitioner as claimed by him either in his writ application or in his representation contained in Annexure-5 is based on a set of false statement. The petitioner was appointed by In-charge Medical Officer, who does not have power to appointment even a Class-4 employee. The petitioner's appointment was made on the post of Vaccinator which is a technical post but the petitioner does not claim to have any qualification for the said post at the time of his appointment. The Vaccinator is not a Class-4 employee like a Peon that any one can be appointed against such post. Admittedly, there was no advertisement made by the In-charge Medical Officer nor any process of selection was undergone by him. The petitioner in fact has not produced a chit 3 of paper to show that the post was advertised or he had the requisite qualification for the post of Vaccinator or that the In-charge Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre was ever empowered by the Government to make appointment on the post of Vaccinator. If on the basis of such inherent infirmities, the petitioner could continue in service for seventeen years, that will not stop the Government from removing a person whose appointment was made in a fraudulent manner. Fraud can vitiate any action and its belated detection cannot absolve the petitioner. . That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)