IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15732 of 2006 UMESH SHANKAR PRASAD, S/O LATE JAI NANDAN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE BARA SENDUARI, P.O & P.S MOTIPUR DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, PRESENTLY WAITING FOR POSTING AT THE POST OF BASIC HEALTH WORKER. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4.THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5.THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. …………………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 18.07.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner’s grievance as against the impugned order terminating his service seems to be wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the respondents in their counter affidavit have fully explained that the appointment of the petitioner was based on forged and fake order and as such a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner being Bettiah Town P.S case no. 326 of 1997. It has also been stated that the petitioner’s appointment was made at the point of time when there was no Civil Surgeon posted in the district but the petitioner has produced his appointment letter which is said to be issued by non-existing Civil 2 Surgeon. Apparently such forged appointment could not have conferred any right to the petitioner and consequently his earlier writ petition for payment of salary also did not yield him fruitful result inasmuch as the Authority was only directed by this Court to decide the correctness of such claim of the petitioner. In the consequential impugned order it has held that the very claim of appointment of the petitioner was based on a forged and fake appointment letter produced by him and that he as a matter of fact was never appointed by the competent Authority much less after following the prescribed procedure. That being so, when there is also no rejoinder to the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit despite its service upon the counsel for the petitioner on 18.08.2009, this Court will have no option but to held that there is no merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)