IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12222 of 2004 Arjun Das, son of late Jaleshwar Das, Resident of Village Gohari, P.S. Suryagarha, District Lakhisarai. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Deputy Development Commissioner, Lakhisarai. 3. District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Lakhisarai. 4. Zila Parishad, Lakhisarai through its Chairman. 5. Subodh Kumar, S/o not known, Assistant, D.S.E. Office, Lakhisarai. 6. Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary. ---------- Respondents ----------- 12 20.6.2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State as also counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board are present. From the orders passed by this Court, it would be clear that that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by the impugned order on the ground of his not being holding the requisite qualification for the post of Teacher as prescribed under the Rules. The petitioner, however, had taken a plea that he had passed his Teachers Training Examination from the Primary Teachers Training College, Purabsarai, Munger. This Court, thereafter, had impleaded Bihar School Examination Board as a party respondent to this writ 2 application and had directed to verify the alleged certificate of training qualification of the petitioner. The Bihar School Examination Board had, thereafter, filed its counter affidavit, wherein, it was stated that the training certificate, as appended by the petitioner, was forged as the roll code stated therein was never used for those examination in that year. It was also pointed out that the alleged verification of the Board with regard to the authenticity of the training certificate of the petitioner was itself a forged letter produced by the petitioner. The Board, in fact, had also taken a clear stand in its counter affidavit that the petitioner was not a bonafide candidate for Primary Teachers Training Course. Counsel for the petitioner, having noticed the aforesaid clear stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit, had sought time to take instruction and file reply to the counter affidavit. Today, when the case has been called out, neither learned counsel for the 3 petitioner has appeared nor any reply to the counter affidavit has been filed. In that view of the matter, this Court must hold that there is no flaw in the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner who had obtained such appointment by producing forged document of training certificate and, in fact, for which aspect, he has also been made accused in a pending criminal case. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)