IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8180 of 1993 SHRI UMA SHANKAR PRASAD, son of late Ram Pragash Singh, resident of Mohalla Punaichak, P.S. Shastrinagar, District Patna, working as Head Clerk in Irrigation Department Planning and Monitoring Circle No.4, Irrigation Bhawan, Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner and Secretary Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer Planning and Monitoring Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Circle no.4, Irrigation Bhawan, Patna 5. The Director Rajbhasha Department, Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 4. 29.7.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In the present case the petitioner has been subjected to an order of recovery on the ground of his not passing departmental Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. From a reading of the writ application and the counter affidavit it would appear that the petitioner as a matter of fact had not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination in the year 1971 and yet misrepresented to have passed such examination, on account of which his increment got released. Later on, it transpired that the petitioner had not passed such examination and therefore, he 2 Surendra/ was subjected to an order of refund of the amount of increment. Such action of the department got in fact certified by the conduct of the petitioner who subsequently appeared in the departmental examination and had allegedly cleared it in the year 1982. That being so, the decisions impugned in this writ application do not suffer from any error. Once misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner is writ large on the face of record, the petitioner cannot claim any relief with regard to recovery of the amount allegedly paid in excess to him. Be that as it may, the petitioner, who has retired from service during the pendency of this writ application and is happily drawing pension at the revised rate in terms of the impugned order, must now be satisfied with the same. In fact the department was quite lenient in leaving the petitioner even after he had committed forgery as with regard to passing of the departmental examination. Be that as it may, this application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 3