IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1212 of 2005 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 8757/2004) 01. The State Of Bihar 02. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 03. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 04. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 05. The Regional Director, Central Range, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 06. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Patna 07. The Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna ….. Appellants Versus Motilal Prasad, Son of Shri Dwarika Prasad, Resident of village- Phulwaria, P.O-Ferusa, P.S.- Garkha, District- Chapra …. Respondents For the Appellants:- Mr. C.S. Singh, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, AC to AAG-6 For the Respondent:- Mr. Abdul Wadood & Mr. Kulanand Jha, Advocates ------------------------------- 07. 17.11.2011 The case relates to the appointment of respondent as a Teacher on the post of Class-IV right from 21.10.1991. Subsequent, when the Department found that the appointment of respondent was forged one, his services were terminated w.e.f. 23.7.1998. The respondent has chosen to question the said termination by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9816 of 1998. Even though stand of the appellant-State through its counter affidavit was that the 2 appointment letter was forged one, the learned Single Judge have not accepted contention of the State and has held that it is not a case of the State that the appointment of the respondent was either invalid or appointment letter was forged issued by the authority hence on that ground set aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed present Appeal. During the course of arguments, even before this Court also, the stand of the State was that the Annexure-‘C’ annexed to the counter affidavit i.e. the appointment letter was forged one and hence the termination cannot be challenged as the respondent was never appointed by the competent authority. To resolve the issue learned counsel for the respondent was directed by an order of this Court on 29.9.2011 to produce the original appointment letter (Annexure-1) annexed to the writ petition. The matter was subsequently adjourned, but however today when the matter has come up, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has expressed his inability to produce the original appointment letter on the ground that about the original 3 appointment letter he cannot get any instruction from his client. Having taken note of such submission, this Court has to presume that there is no original appointment letter issued to the respondent i.e. Annexure-1 and the contention of the learned A.A.G- 1 has to be accepted which is born on the record of the Department that the appointment letter was a forged one. Having found so, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, but however we make it clear that this judgment should not stand on the way of the respondent to apply for any other posts to which he is eligible as per Rules. With the above observations the L.P.A. stands allowed. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain,J .)