IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7861 of 2006 GOPAL KUMAR, son of late Siya Ram Singh, Resident of village Baikathpur, P.S.Khushropur Dist. Patna------------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Collector, Patna 3.The Senior Superintendent of Police,Patna 4.The Superintendent of Police, Rural,Patna 5.The Officer-in-Charge, Khusropur Police Station, Patna 6.The Patna District Compassionate Appointment Committee through its Chairman i.e. The Collector, Patna------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :M/S P.N.Shahi Shivendra Kumar Sinha For the State :Mr.Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A.5 ----- 6. 13.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner had originally approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground on a post of Chowkidar or any other Class IV post upon the death of his father Siya Ram Singh on 4.8.2002 while he was working as a Dafadar of Circle No.15, Khushropur Police Station in the District of Patna and on the basis of the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee at its meeting held on 29.8.2003 (Annexure-5). Subsequently during the pendency of the writ application his case for compassionate appointment was reconsidered in the 2 meeting of the District Compassionate Committee on 28.8.2006 and it was decided to cancel his proposal for appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that on verification of his educational qualification through the District Education Officer, Patna it was found that the said educational qualification was invalid. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the said decision of the District Compassionate Committee canceling the earlier proposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the District Compassionate Committee has been passed without affording him any opportunity in the matter and in violation of principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the same ought to be quashed. It is submitted that the cancellation has been made on the basis of the transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster and in course of verification of the same it was found that the Admission Register of the school showed a number of interpolations in the column of his name and for the said reason his educational qualification is found to be invalid. 3 The contention of learned counsel is that the petitioner is not the custodian of the Admission Register and the entries are also not made by him and, accordingly, if any such overwriting etc. had been made the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. Learned counsel points out to the fact that a criminal case has also been instituted against the petitioner in which the concerned Headmaster has deposed in court as P.W.3 and he admitted to the fact that he has correctly issued the certificates on the basis of the material in the Admission Register and due to inadvertence certain wrong facts had been recorded in the Admission Register which had been corrected by overwriting or canceling out the same. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the District Compassionate Committee was fully justified in canceling its earlier proposal recommending the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment since the said recommendation was made subject to the verification of his transfer certificate. In the course of the verification of the educational certificate of the petitioner by the District 4 Education Officer, Patna, who had directed his subordinate officials to make an enquiry, the Block Development Extension Officer, Fatuha had by his letter dated 17.4.2006 reported that no other document except the Admission Register was available from which it appeared that the column with respect to the petitioner was of a doubtful character and requested that further enquiry be made by him in the matter. Thereafter the Area Education Officer, Patna Sadar was directed to make further enquiry by the District Education Officer who by his letter dated 13.6.2006 reported that the Headmaster was unable to show any document except the Admission Register with respect to the present matter and could not show even the counterfoil of the school transfer certificate, Attendance Register of students, Examination Result Register, etc. On an examination of the Admission Register he found that the name of the student, his father’s name, village name, date of birth, in which class he was admitted all these have been subjected to cutting which shows that the petitioner was not studying at the said school. It was further found by him that only 4-5 students were studying in 5 the said school whereas hundreds of students were shown to have studied in Class 8 which can be verified from the office of the District Superintendent of Education. He further noted the point that the father of the petitioner was a Dafadar belonging to Bhumihar caste whereas in the caste column of the Admission Register the petitioner has been shown as Yadav. For all the said reasons he came to the conclusion that the Admission Register has been interpolated and, accordingly, the educational certificate issued on the basis of the same was also a false and invalid document. He further recommended strong action against the Incharge Headmaster who was responsible for the same. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that so far as the matters of verification of educational certificates produced by the candidates is concerned, it has not been the practice of the District Compassionate Committee or the appointing authorities to provide an opportunity of hearing to the candidates in that regard and as a matter of fact the same is not required to be given in any type of appointments, whether compassionate 6 appointments or regular appointments. Moreover, learned counsel submits that the documents have already been brought on the record and the petitioner has not assailed the same as forged or manipulated; rather only an explanation has been sought to be given that corrections were made in the different columns of the entry relating to the petitioner by the Headmaster who has also owned up the same in the criminal case against the petitioner in which he is appearing as a prosecution witness. On a consideration of the rival submissions, this Court does not find it a case where the petitioner was appointed and subsequently his appointment is sought to be cancelled. Any recommendation made by the recommending authority for appointment is always subject to verification of educational or other certificates that may be produced by the candidates in question. In the present matter, the District Compassionate Committee had directed for verification of the educational qualification of the petitioner and the same was done under the authority of the District Education Officer who had earlier directed the Block Education Extension Officer to 7 make the said enquiry and subsequently further enquiries had been directed to be made by the Area Education Officer and he has given his report showing the various irregularities committed and has also annexed copy of the Admission Register with the same. It is evident from merely looking at the Admission Register that the entries in the concerned column itself appears to have been made with respect to another person and subsequently every entry in the column has been cancelled out and interpolated so as to show the same serial number in the Admission Register as that of the petitioner in the transfer certificate. It is not a case where a single error has been cancelled out and rectified rather it is a case where each and every entry made in the column had to be rectified in order to accommodate the petitioner’s name in the Admission Register. In the said circumstances, the action of the authorities cannot be held to be unjustified. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, this Court is of the view that at the stage of 8 verification of certificates it is no part of the duty of the respondents to involve the petitioner in the same. The certificates have to be verified from the original documents available with the education authorities and no role can be envisaged for the candidates at that stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to show as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the present matter, on the basis of the documents that have been brought on the record by way of counter affidavit and which point only in one direction and no other direction, namely, that the certificate issued to the petitioner is not supported by the entries in the Admission Register. Thus, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/