IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4455 of 2007 Bhupendra Kumar Sharma, son of late Radha Krishn Singh, resident of village Khokhara, P.S. Kalyanpur, District East Champaran at Motihari, Assistant Teacher, Sitaram High School, Lal Saraiya Colony P.S. Bettiah, District West Champaran at Bettiah … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat (Bikash Bhawan) Patna 3. The Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat (Bikas Bhawan), Patna 4. The Deputy Director, Govt. of Bihar, Bihar Secondary Education Officer Budh Marg, Patna- 800001 5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 6. The District Education Officer West Champaran at Bettiah … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 18.8.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents are present. From the perusal of the record it would be clear that the petitioner’s services had been terminated on 12.11.2003 on the ground that his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher was based on a forged appointment letter. From the perusal of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, whose copy was refused to be accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that he has got no instruction, it would be clear that infact a full-fledged enquiry was made with regard to the alleged claim of process of selection to have been undergone in the case of the petitioner in the office of Vidyalaya Sewa Board whereafter it was discovered that the name of the petitioner was not even included in the selected list of teachers of Vidyalaya Sewa Board. Consequently it was not difficult for the respondents to come to a 2 conclusion that the appointment letter produced by the petitioner was a forged appointment letter, inasmuch as the same had given reference to a recommendation made by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board. The detailed reasons given in the counter affidavit would also leave nothing for speculation that it was the petitioner who had indulged in such act of forgery and playing fraud for his own pecuniary benefit by way of drawing salary against a forged appointment letter. As a matter of fact the writ jurisdiction for adjudicating such disputed claim would be wholly inappropriate and thus following the orders passed by this Court on 16.7.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 2406/2002, C.W.J.C.No. 277/2002, C.W.J.C.No. 3352/2002 and C.W.J.C.No. 3353/2002 as also a subsequent order dated 3.5.2011 in C.W.J.C.No. 15214/2007 and C.W.J.C.No. 16259/2007 this Court would hold this writ application to be not maintainable and would, accordingly, dismiss this writ application. Such dismissal of the writ application, however, will not stand in the way of the petitioner of moving appropriate Civil Court for seeking a declaration that his so called appointment letter is not forged or fraudulent. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/