IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4489 of 2007 1. Deepak Kumar, son of late Ram Narayan, Resident of at + P.O. Akabarpur, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur 2. Deepak Kumar Rajak, son of Sri Bhola Baitha, resident of At + P.O. Barari West Line, P.S. Barari, District Bhagalpur 3. Vidya Bhushan Prakash, son of Shiv Jee Ram, Resident of At + P.O. Daulatpur, P.S. Arrah Muffasil, District Bhojpur 4. Kailash Anand, son of late Lal Das, resident of village Hussanganj, P.O. Safiabad, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District Munger 5. Devendra Kumar Das, son of Sri Bhuwaneshwar Das, resident of village Gonalwari, P.O. Chutia, District Banka … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary Bihar Public Service Commission, Baily Road, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Baily Road, Patna 4. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Superintendent of Education of Bhagalpur 6. The District Magistrate cum the Chairman District Education Establishment Committee Bhagalpur 7. The Area Education Officer, Bhagalpur … Respondents ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9625 of 2007 Shailendra Prasad Yadav, son of late Shiv Narayan Yadav, resident of village Ganeshpur, P.S. Kharik, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary Bihar Public Service Commission, Baily Road, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Baily Road, Patna 4. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Superintendent of Education of Bhagalpur 6. The District Magistrate cum the Chairman District Education Establishment Committee Bhagalpur 7. The Area Education Officer, Bhagalpur … Respondents -------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State : G.P.-5 For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Jha, Advocate ---------------------------------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORDER (28.09.2011) Mihir Kumar Jha, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the 2 petitioners as also the counsel for the State and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Jha, learned counsel for Bihar Public Service Commission. The prayer of the petitioners in these two writ applications is for quashing the orders dated 16.9.1999 and 2.11.1999, whereby and whereunder they were restrained from working on the post of Assistant Teacher under the orders of the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur on the ground that their candidature as with regard to a recommendation in their favour by the Bihar Public Service Commission was doubtful and that the order of acceptance of joining was to be cancelled by entrusting the matter back to the Bihar Public Service Commission. The facts giving rise to the aforementioned situation and consequential impugned orders lie in a narrow compass. An advertisement No. 24 of 1996 was published in the month of January, 1996 for making recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers exclusively for the category of the candidates of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant to the said advertisement the applicants had filed their application in which they had also enclosed three photographs for its being pasted on Form „Ka‟ and „Kha‟ and the third photograph was to be pasted on the Admit-card. The Bihar Public Service Commission thereafter had issued Admit-cards to the candidates and preliminary test was held on 22.12.1996 and those who could clear the preliminary test were allowed to appear in the main examination which was held on 11.10.1998. The result of the successful candidate thereafter was published on 7.4.1999 and the Commission sent its recommendation on 3.5.1999 in which the petitioners who had allegedly also cleared the preliminary test and the main examination having been recommended by the Commission were directed to report for appointment before the District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Bhagalpur. The D.S.E., Bhagalpur on 18.5.1999 had directed the petitioners to appear in person for verification and on such verification appointment letters were 3 issued on 12.7.1999 but then soon thereafter it had transpired that a few of the candidates in whose favour appointment letter was issued and joining were accepted were not the candidates in whose favour the recommendation was actually made by the Commission. The reason for entertaining such a doubt was a marked distinguishable difference in the photograph that they had filed in the office of the District Superintendent of Education at the time of verification of their candidature on 18.5.1999 and the other which was received from B.P.S.C. posted on the original application of the petitioners., The D.S.E., Bhagalpur however thought it prudent to refer the matter back to the B.P.S.C. and therefore, had cancelled the joining letter by the impugned orders passed on 16.9.1999 and 2.11.1999. From the records it also transpires that on 9.11.1999 the D.S.E., Bhagalpur had sent a report to the B.P.S.C. for giving its definite opinion as with regard to candidature of the petitioners and thereafter a series of correspondence was made between the D.S.E. and the B.P.S.C. This unending game of Volleyball and tossing of the ball from one court to other had continued for next six years inasmuch as when the issue of identification/ genuineness of the candidature of the petitioners was sent to the B.P.S.C., someone in the office of the B.P.S.C. had though it prudent to rely on the opinion of an officer deputed by D.S.E., Bhagalpur and that is how the B.P.S.C. had also communicated that as the Officer concerned of the office of the D.S.E. had found no infirmity in the candidature of the petitioners, the issue required no further opinion from the B.P.S.C. It has to be also noted that when the D.S.E. has made further attempt to seek a clarification from the B.P.S.C. someone in the B.P.S.C. thought it appropriate to question the jurisdiction of the D.S.E. for making such a reference directly to the B.P.S.C. In such a helpless situation the D.S.E., Bhagalpur finding it difficult to resolve the issue at his level had made the reference to the Director, Primary Education for a clear guideline but the Director, Primary had also shirked from responsibility and had merely directed the competent appointing authority i.e. 4 District Education Establishment Committee, Bhagalpur to examine the matter afresh. It appears that in the meeting held on 26.5.2005 the Establishment Committee had decided to obtain another photograph of all the candidates and pursuant thereto the D.S.E. had issued orders directing all the petitioners to produce their photographs by his letter dated 29.6.2005 whereafter the petitioners had submitted their fresh photograph. These newly obtained photographs of the year 2005 of the petitioners were once again sent to the office of the Commission on 2.7.2005 on which the B.P.S.E. now had called for the copy of Praptra „Kha‟ the copy of the original application which was sent by the B.P.S.C. alongwith recommendation on 3.5.1999. On 6.8.2005 the D.S.E., Bhagalpur had sent the desired documents to the B.P.S.C. whereafter some opinion was sent by the B.P.S.C. but the issue could still not be resolved and as such, the petitioners had filed these two writ petitions primarily for the same relief that their joining should be accepted and they should be allowed to work. This Court having heard the parties in the light of the pleadings on record had passed an interim order on 18.8.2011 which would throw light of the nature of controversy relating to identification/ genuineness of the candidature of the petitioners. The order of this Court dated 18.8.2011 reads as follows: “ Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court would direct the Chairman of Bihar Public Service Commission to personally look into the stand taken by the Commission in its earlier counter affidavit and get a supplementary counter affidavit sworn by the Secretary of the Commission. The Chairman has to indulge into this exercise because once the Commission had recommended the names of the petitioners for their appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers and if the Commission had any doubt as with regard to the identification/ genuineness of the candidature of the petitioners, it could have cancelled such recommendation only after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It, however, appears that the Commission after the appointment of the petitioners on 12.7.1999 had sent certain communication vide letter no. 122 dated 12.10.1999 5 reporting as with regard to the doubtful candidature of the petitioners. The Chairman of the Commission, therefore, would be required to go into the total episode of letter no. 122 dated 12.10.1999 as also to the only vague communication made by the Commission in its subsequent letter dated 13.10.2005 as contained in Annexure –C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur (respondent no.5). Let it be made clear that since the cancellation of appointment is based on the recommendation of the Commission, it will be the Commission which will have to justify its action of placing the case of the petitioners under doubtful category. The Commission shall also produce the relevant records relating to all the petitioners including the “Praptra ka” and “kha” of their applications initially filed by them seeking appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. List this case on 5th of September, 2011 at the top of the list. It is however made clear that if such affidavit is not filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission and/or the records are not produced before this Court then this Court would direct for personal appearance of the Secretary of the Commission.” Pursuant thereto the Commission had produced the records and had also filed supplementary counter affidavit. On their perusal it became clear that no one in the office of the B.P.S.C. had sincerely examined the issue as referred to by the D.S.E., Bhagalpur and in fact when someone in the B.P.S.C. thought it question the jurisdiction of the D.S.E. in making such a direct reference, the rest of the correspondence on the subject must be held to be wholly a futile and wasteful exercise. The issue of identification/ genuineness of the candidature of the petitioners, therefore, was sought to be resolved by seeking assistance of the Director, Primary Education as also Secretary of the B.P.S.C. who were present in Court on 7.9.2011 to assist this Court to resolve the issue. In the light of the consensus arrived on 7.9.2011 when the learned counsel for the petitioners also had shown his willingness for allowing the petitioners to appear before the two men 6 Committee for verification/ genuineness of their candidature, this Court had passed an order on 7.9.2011 which is also reproduced hereinbelow: “ Having heard counsel for the parties in presence of the Director, Primary Education and the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, this Court would direct both the aforementioned officials to sit together on 12th of September, 2011 in the office of the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission hold an enquiry in the matter of alleged impersonation of the petitioners and while doing so they would also take into consideration the four photographs of each of the petitioners as also their specimen handwriting and its comparison with their admitted handwriting in the records of the Commission. The petitioners are accordingly directed to remain present in the office of the Secretary, B.P.S.C. on 12th September, 2011 at 11.00 A.M. and may produce any proof to establish their identity. The Secretary, B.P.S.C. and the Director, Primary Education shall submit their report to this Court on the issue of allegation of impersonation by the petitioners. They will also fix individual responsibility against the persons on account of whose action/ inaction the matter relating to verification and the consequential final decision in respect of the petitioners had remained pending for a period of almost 11 years. List this case on 15th September, 2011 at the top of the list when the Director, Primary Education and the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission shall again remain present in person. Let the records of the B.P.S.C. be returned back to Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the Commission, for doing the needful.” It appears that in terms of the aforementioned direction the petitioners had appeared before the two men Committee and the two men Committee had made verification from the photographs as also had obtained their handwriting for its comparison with the handwriting on the application submitted by them. The Committee thereafter came to a finding that barring petitioner no.5 of C.W.J.C.No. 4489/2007 the genuineness of the candidature of rest of the petitioners could not be 7 proved and that they did not appear to be the candidates who had appeared in the examination. When a report to this extent was filed by the two men Committee on 15.9.2011, this Court had on its perusal directed to bring such report on affidavit with a copy thereof on the counsel for the petitioners. The order dated 15.9.2011 reads as follows: “ Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 7.9.2011, the Secretary, B.P.S.C. and Director of Primary Education has appeared in person and have filed their joint Inquiry Report in a sealed cover which is taken on record. From the report it transpires that while the inquiry Committee had found the case of the petitioner no.5 to be genuine and the allegations of impersonation against him to be wrong, it is, however, held that the photograph of petitioner no.1 to 4 as prescribed in the office of the B.P.S.C. vi de “praptra Ka” and “Kha” do not tally with the photographs of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 at the time of their appointment and thus the allegation of impersonation against them is correct. Counsel for the State is directed to file a copy of such report by way of supplementary counter affidavit after serving a copy of the same on the counsel for the petitioner.” Counsel for the petitioners has also filed rejoinder to the aforementioned affidavit containing reports of the enquiry and it has been canvassed by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel, that when the Committee itself was not very sure as with regard to genuineness and had suggested that if this Court wants it can still refer the matter to the handwriting expert or to the expert of Forensic Science Laboratory, no final view can be recorded as with regard to genuineness of the candidature of the petitioners (except petitioner no.5). He has further criticized the report in respect of the petitioner Shailendra Prasad Yadav by pointing out that in his case there was hardly any occasion for the Committee to doubt the genuineness as all his photographs had tallied and the Committee itself had found no plausible reason for doubting the 8 candidature of the petitioner Shailendra Prasad Yadav. In order to be fair to the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, this Court would find it necessary to reproduce the findings of the Committee as with regard to all the petitioners. ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk okn la[;k lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la[;k&4489@2007 ¼nhid dqekj ,oa vU; cuke fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU;½ esa fnukad 07- 09-2011 dks ikfjr vkns”k ds vuqikyu ds vkyksd esa fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx] iVuk ,oa ftyk f”k{kk inkkf/kdkjh] Hkkxyiqj ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k vfHkys[k@dkxtkr ds vuqlkj oknh ds igpku dh tk¡p lacaf/kr oknh ds le{k lfpo] fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx ds dk;kZy; d{k esa fnukad 12-09-2011 dks iwokZg~u 11-00 cts ls dh x;hA oknhokj fLFkfr fuEuor gS%& 1- Jh nhid dqekj ¼vuqdzekad&488837½ %& ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dk QksVksxzkQ ,d gh gSA oknh dk psgjk mDr QksVksxzkQ ls fHkUu izrhr gqvkA oknh ds eSfVªdqys”ku ds izos”k i= ij jf{kr QksVksxzkQ] tks 1992 dk gS] ,oa oknh dk psgjk ,d leku izrhr gksrk gSA lkFk gh oknh }kjk rRdkyhu ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djk;k x;k QksVksxzkQ oknh ds psgjk ls feyk gSA ¼vuqyXud%& A/1, A/2 ,oa A/3½ lHkh mifLFkr lnL;ksa ds le{k oknh ls ,d iUuk ij vkosnu i= ls lacaf/kr dqN izfof’V fy[kkbZ x;h rkfd fy[kkoV ls oknh dh igpku lqfuf”pr gks ldsA ifjf”k’V& “d” ,oa “[k” dh gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj rFkk mifLFkfr i=d ij vkosnd ds gLrk{kj dk feyku oknh ds gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj ls djus ij oknh dk gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj izk;% fHkUu ik;k x;kA ¼vuqyXud%& A/4½ ifjf”k’V „d‟ ij vafdr vkosnd ds igpku fpUg ls oknh ds igpku fpUg dk feyku djus ij mls lgh ik;k x;kA mDr rF;ksa ds voyksdu ls izFke n`’V~;k izrhr gks jgk gS fd oknh ¼Jh nhid dqekj½] ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” ds vH;FkhZ ls vyx gSA 2- Jh fo|kHkw’k.k izdk”k ¼vuqdzekad&487961½ %& ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dk QksVksxzkQ ,d gh gSA oknh dk psgjk mDr QksVksxzkQ ls fHkUu izrhr gqvkA oknh ds eSfVªdqys”ku ,oa bUVjehfM,V ds izos”k i= ij jf{kr QksVksxzkQ] tks dze”k% 1984,oa 1992 dk gS] ,oa oknh dk psgjk ,d leku izrhr gksrk gSA lkFk gh oknh }kjk rRdkyhu ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djk;k x;k QksVksxzkQ oknh ds psgjk ls feyk gSA ¼vuqyXud%& B/1, B /2 ,oa B /3½A lHkh mifLFkr lnL;ksa ds le{k oknh ls ,d iUuk ij vkosnu i= ls lacaf/kr dqN izfof’V fy[kkbZ x;h rkfd fy[kkoV ls oknh dh igpku lqfuf”pr gks ldsA ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dh gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj rFkk mifLFkfr i=d ij vkosnd ds glrk{kj dk feyku oknh ds glrfyfi@gLrk{kj ls djus ij oknh dk gLrfyfi izk;% fHkUu ik;k x;k] ijUrq gLrk{kj feyrk gqvk izrhr gSA ¼vuqyXud%& B/4½A ifjf”k’V „d‟ ij vafdr vkosnd ds igpku fpUg ls oknh ds igpku fpUg dk 9 feyku djus ij mls lgh ik;k x;kA mDr rF;ksa ds voyksdu ls izFke n`’V~;k izrhr gks jgk gS fd oknh ¼Jh fo|kHkw’k.k izdk”k½] ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” ds vH;FkhZ ls izk;% vyx gSA 3- Jh dSyk”k vkuUn ¼vuqdzekad&487893½ %& ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dk QksVksxzkQ ,d gh gSA oknh dk psgjk mDr QksVksxzkQ ls fHkUu izrhr gqvkA oknh ds eSfVªdqys”ku ds izos”k i= ij jf{kr QksVksxzkQ] tks 1991 dk gS] ,oa oknh dk psgjk ,d leku izrhr gksrk gSA lkFk gh oknh }kjk rRdkyhu ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djk;k x;k QksVksxzkQ oknh ds psgjk ls feyrk gSA ¼vuqyXud%& C/1, C /2 ,oa C /3½A lHkh mifLFkr lnL;ksa ds le{k oknh ls ,d iUuk ij vkosnu i= ls lacaf/kr dqN izfof’V fy[kkbZ x;h rkfd fy[kkoV ls oknh dh igpku lqfuf”pr gks ldsA ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dh gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj rFkk mifLFkfr i=d ij vkosnd ds glrk{kj dk feyku oknh ds gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj ls djus ij oknh dk gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj izk;% fHkUu ik;k x;kA ¼vuqyXud%& C/4½ ifjf”k’V „d‟ ij vafdr vkosnd ds igpku fpUg ls oknh ds igpku fpUg dk feyku djus ij mls lgh ik;k x;kA mDr rF;ksa ds voyksdu ls izFke n`’V~;k izrhr gks jgk gS fd oknh ¼Jh dSyk”k vkuUn½] ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” ds vH;FkhZ ls izk;% vyx gSA 4- Jh “kSysUnz izlkn ;kno ¼vuqdzekad&068971½ %& ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dk QksVksxzkQ ,d gh gSA oknh dk psgjk mDr QksVksxzkQ ls feyrk gqvk izrhr gksrk gSA oknh ds eSfVªdqys”ku ,oa bUVjehfM,V ds izos”k i= ij jf{kr QksVksxzkQ ,oa oknh dk psgjk ,d leku izrhr gksrk gSA lkFk gh oknh }kjk rRdkyhu ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djk;k x;k QksVksxzkQ oknh ds psgjk ls feyrk gSA ¼vuqyXud%& D/1, D /2 ,oa D /3½ lHkh mifLFkr lnL;ksa ds le{k oknh ls ,d iUuk ij vkosnu i= ls lacaf/kr dqN izfof’V fy[kkbZ x;h rkfd fy[kkoV ls oknh dh igpku lqfuf”pr gks ldsA vH;FkhZ ds ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dh gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj dk feyku oknh ds gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj ls djus ij oknh dk gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj izk;% leku ik;k x;kA ¼vuqyXud%& D/4½A ifjf”k’V „d‟ ij vafdr vkosnd ds igpku fpUg ls oknh ds igpku fpUg dk feyku fd;k x;kA igpku la[;k&1 ;Fkk nkfgus iSj ij dVs ds fu”kku dk vadu gS] ijUrq oknh ds “kjhj ij cgqr gydk dVs dk fu”kku ns[kk x;kA igpku la[;k&2 ;Fkk ck;sa da/ks ds ikl fry dk fu”kku dk vadu gS] ijUrq oknh ds “kjhj ds mDr Hkkx ij dksbZ Hkh fry n`f’Vxr ugha gqvkA mDr rF;ksa ds voyksdu ls izFke n`’V~;k izrhr gks jgk gS fd oknh ¼Jh “kSysUnz izlkn ;kno½ ,oa ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” ds vH;FkhZ ls izk;% ,d gh O;fDr gSA ;gk¡ ;g rF; Hkh vaduh; gS fd mifLFkfr i=d ij vH;FkhZ ,oa oh{kd dk gLrk{kj vafdr ugha gSA bl vk/kkj ij ;g lqfuf”pr dj ikuk dfBu gks tkrk gS fd vH;FkhZ vFkok oknh mDr fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gq, Fks vFkok ughaA vk;ksx dk;kZy; esa ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus ls lacaf/kr vU; dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha gSA 10 5- Jh nsosUnz dqekj nkl ¼vuqdzekad&486919½ %& ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dk QksVksxzkQ ,d gh gSA oknh dk psgjk mDr QksVksxzkQ ls izk;% feyrk gqvk izrhr gksrk gSA oknh ds e/;ek ijh{kk ds izos”k i= ij jf{kr QksVksxzkQ] tks 1992 dk gS] ,oa oknh dk psgjk ,d leku izrhr gksrk gSA lkFk gh oknh }kjk rRdkyhu ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djk;k x;k QksVksxzkQ oknh ds psgjk ls feyrk gSA ¼vuqyXud%& E/1, E /2 ,oa E /3½ lHkh mifLFkr lnL;ksa ds le{k oknh ls ,d iUuk ij vkosnu i= ls lacaf/kr dqN izfof’V fy[kkbZ x;h rkfd fy[kkoV ls oknh dh igpku lqfuf”pr gks ldsA ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dh gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj rFkk mifLFkfr i=d ij vkosnd ds glrk{kj dk feyku oknh ds gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj ls djus ij oknh dk gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj izk;% leku izrhr gksrk gSA ¼vuqyXud%& E /4½ ifjf”k’V „d‟ ij vafdr vkosnd ds igpku fpUg ls oknh ds igpku fpUg dk feyku djus ij mls lgh ik;k x;kA mDr rF;ksa ds voyksdu ls izFke n`’V~;k izrhr gks jgk gS fd oknh ¼Jh nsosUnz dqekj nkl½] ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” ds vH;FkhZ ds yxHkx leku gSA 6- Jh nhid dqekj jtd ¼vuqdzekad&488834½ %& ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dk QksVksxzkQ ,d gh gSA oknh dk psgjk mDr QksVksxzkQ ls fHkUu izrhr gqvkA oknh ds eSfVªdqys”ku ,oa Lukrd ds izos”k i= ij jf{kr QksVksxzkQ] tks dze”k% 1984 ,oa 1994 dk gS] ,oa oknh dk psgjk ,d leku izrhr gksrk gSA lkFk gh oknh }kjk rRdkyhu ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djk;k x;k QksVksxzkQ oknh ds psgjk ls feyrk gSA ¼vuqyXud%& F/1, F /2 ,oa F /3½A lHkh mifLFkr lnL;ksa ds le{k oknh ls ,d iUuk ij vkosnu i= ls lacaf/kr dqN izfof’V fy[kkbZ x;h rkfd fy[kkoV ls oknh dh igpku lqfuf”pr gks ldsA ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” dh gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj rFkk mifLFkfr i=d ij vkosnd ds glrk{kj dk feyku oknh ds gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj ls djus ij oknh dk gLrfyfi@gLrk{kj izk;% fHkUu ik;k x;kA ¼vuqyXud%& F /4½A ifjf”k’V „d‟ ij vafdr vkosnd ds igpku fpUg ls oknh ds igpku fpUg dk feyku djus ij mls lgh ik;k x;kA mDr rF;ksa ds voyksdu ls izFke n`’V~;k izrhr gks jgk gS fd oknh ¼Jh nhid dqekj jtd½] ifjf”k’V “d” ,oa “[k” ds vH;FkhZ ls vyx gSA izFke n`’V~;k fu’d’kZ%& ¼d½ Jh nsosUnz dqekj nkl ¼vuqdzekad 486919½] oknh ifjf”k’V& “d” ,oa “[k” ds vH;FkhZ ds yxHkx leku gSaA ¼[k½ Jh “kSysUnz izlkn ;kno ¼vuqdzekad 068971½] oknh ifjf”k’V& “d” ,oa “[k” ds vH;FkhZ izk;% ,d gh O;fDr gSa] ijUrq ;g lqfuf”pr ugha gks ik;k f dos eq[; ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gq, Fks vFkok ughaA ¼x½ “ks’k pkj oknh dh igpku vH;FkhZ ds :i esa ugha gks ldhA ¼?k½ tk¡p ds nkSjku lacaf/kr rF; Hkh lkeus vk;k fd mDr okn ls lacaf/kr ik¡p vH;FkhZ ;Fkk Jh nhid dqekj] Jh fo|kHkw’k.k izdk”k] Jh dSyk”k vkuUn] Jh nhid dqekj jtd ,oa Jh nsosUnz dqekj nkl ds eq[; ijh{kk dk ijh{kk dsUnz egUr guqeku “kj.k dkWyst] jktkiqj] 11 eSuiqj] iVuk FkkA blesa Hkh Jh nsosUnz dqekj nkl dks NksM+dj “ks’k pkj vH;fFkZ;ksa us ,d gh d{k esa ,d gh oh{kd ds le{k ijh{kk fn;k gSA ¼M-½ okfn;ksa ls iwNrkN ds nkSjku Kkr gqvk fd izk;% mDr okn ls lacaf/kr vkosnu i=ksa dks fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ }kjk lEiw.kZ :i ls LogLrfyfi esa ugha Hkjk x;k gSA tkap ds dze esa ;g eglwl fd;k x;k fd ds fcUnq ij dksbZ Hkh vafre fu.kZ; ysus ds iwoZ ;fn ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk mfpr le>s arks fo”ks’kK O;fDr@laLFkk] ;Fkk gLrfyfi fo”ks’kK ;k dsUnzh; Qksjsafld lkbZal yscksjsVjh ls tk¡p djk;h tk ldrh gSA oknh vkSj vH;FkhZ ,d gh O;fDr gSa vFkok ugha ;g lqfuf”pr gksus ds ckn gh oknh ds iqu% ;ksxnku esa foyEc ds fy, mŸkjnkf;Ro dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkuk mfpr