IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9621 of 2003 SMT.SHAHINA QUMAR, daughter of Late Md. Kamruddin Ansari, resident of Mohalla- Nauranganj, P.S. Sasaram (Town) District- Rohtas. … Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Secondary Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Rohtas, District- Rohtas. 5. Nirmala Singh, father’s name not known, the Headmistress, Rama Rani Jain Girls High School, Dehri-on-Sone, District- Rohtas. … responents. ----------- 4. 13.09.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application, the following prayer of the petitioner; “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) for quashing of the office-order contained in Memo No. 1966 dated 18.8.2003 issued by respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been removed from the service of the Govt. and respondent no. 4 has been granted permission to institute a certificate case against the petitioner for recovery of the amount withdrawn by her after joining in service. Further respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all service benefits and to pay all arrears of salary which has not been paid to her for working period with bank interest rate. And/or for any other appropriate relief(s) to the petitioner for which she may be found entitled in the eye of law.” 2 gets answered from paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit wherein the respondents have taken his following stand; “3. That in the present context it is humbly submitted at the outset that the petitioner does not deserve any relief from the Hon’ble Court as prayed for in the writ application. The petitioner got appointed herself on the basis of forged and fabricated certificate of M.A. (Urdu) and received payment. In verification, the certificate was found forged and fabricated and so the amount received by her requires, recovery the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of hearing before issuance of the order under challenge (Memo No. 1966 dated 18.8.03). Annexure-1 to the writ application. Thus the order is fit to be upheld and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.” Though there is a denial on the part of the petitioner to the aforementioned averment but then this has become clear that the whole dispute relates to the petitioner obtaining appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated certificate. Such complicated question of facts cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being so, this writ application is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to prove that her appointment was made by undergoing the 3 prescribed procedure. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)