IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5892 of 1998 1. Brij Bihari Ram, son of late Tusa Ram, resident of Village Gharbasdih, Post Office Osaov, P.S. Karakat (Kadwan), Dist. Rohtas. 2. Murari Prasad, son of Sri Raj Mangal Prasad Singh, resident of Village Rasakpur, P.O. Rasakpur, P.S. Dumra, Dist. Sitamarhi. 3. Madan Kumar Singh, son of Shri Jai Narayan Singh, resident of Village Balha, P.S. Parasuai, P.O. Parsausi, Dist. Sitamarhi. 4. Madan Kumar Singh, son of Sri Jai Dayal Singh, resident of Village Adaury, P.O. Adaury, Dist. Shivhar. 5. Bipin Kumar Chaudhary, son of Shri Drabeshwar Chaudhary, resident of Village Kolhanta Pataury, P.S. Pataury Basant, Dist. Darbhanga. --------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirihut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi. 6. The Head Master, Govt. of Basic School, Bisahi, Dist. Sitamarhi. 7. Treasury Officer, Sitamarhi, Dist. Sitamarhi. --------- Respondents ----------- 5 25.7.2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. This writ application arises out of an order terminating the services of the petitioners on the ground that their appointments were based on forged document. Mr. A.A.G.-9 appearing on behalf of the State points out that the same impugned order has already been approved by this Court by dismissing CWJC No. 292 of 1998 and CWJC No. 258 of 1998 in the case of (Mukul Kumar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and 2 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). In any event, this Court would find that the appointment made by Mr. Bhola Ram without undergoing the prescribed procedure even otherwise was nullity in the eye of law. The reasoning given by the respondents in their counter affidavit in fact would leave nothing for speculation that the petitioners’ appointment was out and out a rank illegal appointment and the same could not have been justified on fact or in law. Be that as it may, the absence of the counsel for the petitioners in this case relating to termination of the services of the year 1998 would even otherwise be reflective of the fact that the petitioners have lost their interest. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)