IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.94 of 2006 NASIR AHMAD son of late Md. Mianjan, resident of village Ekahari, Post Ekahari, Via Ladania, District Madhubani… ...Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through District Magistrate, Madhubani, 2. Director Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, 3. The R.D.D.E., Darbhanga, 4. District Education Officer, Madhubani, 5. Block Education Development Officer, Madhopur, Madhubani, 6. The Principal Rajpun Samaj Middle School, Madhopur, Madhubani, 7. Shafique Mansuri son of Manori Mansuri, resident of village Ekahari, P.S. Ladania, District Madhubani.. ....Respondents. For the Petitioner : M/s. F.A.Khan, Md. Sufiyan, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Rikesh Sinha, AC to AAG-X. …………… 5 08.03.2011 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in a Primary School of the Government vide appointment letter dated 03.06.1972 and thereafter, he was working as such. However, subsequently one person made a complaint on 19.03.1998 bringing to the notice of the District Education Officer, Madhubani that the petitioner’s certificates as well as appointment letter were forged and fabricated one. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner 2 and petitioner was directed to appear along with all the relevant original documents. The case of the petitioner is that he had submitted the documents, and upon verification of the documents the District Education Officer, Madhubani had vacated the order of withholding the petitioner’s salary on 25.09.1999. However, it appears that again on 22.06.2004, he was directed to produce all his educational certificates for verification. Petitioner could not appear and reason has been given in the writ petition that he had fallen ill. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been dismissed from the service without any departmental proceeding. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 wherein it has been stated that a compliant was filed against the petitioner in the office of Lokayukta, Bihar alleging that the Matriculation certificate and the training certificate of the petitioner are forged and fabricated. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani was directed to submit a report in this regard. The Headmaster of the Middle School Madhepur informed through a letter dated 11.02.2005 that the petitioner did not submit his required certificates for verification and then it 3 has been stated that the petitioner fled away from the School since May 2004, as has been reported by the Headmaster. The documents have been brought on record as Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that after receiving the report of Headmaster, the petitioner was suspended vide Memo No.2933 dated 27.07.2005. He was also directed to appear before the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani with his all necessary documents and notice was also published in Newspaper but the petitioner failed to comply the order. It is further contended on behalf of the State that Lokayukta directed the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani to verify the certificates of the petitioner through Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and take necessary action thereafter. Upon such, it appears that Deputy Secretary, Vigilance, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna vide letter No.6255 dated 10.08.2005 has informed that from the perusal of the record the certificates of the petitioner were found forged and fabricated. Since the petitioner, for getting the employment, has used the forged and fabricated certificates, he has been dismissed from his service vide Memo No.3740 dated 03.10.2005 4 (Annexure-1). The learned counsel appearing for the State drew attention of this Court towards the impugned order itself wherein it stands recorded that the petitioner had sent a letter by registered post stating therein that he should be given voluntary retirement as he would not work from 22.08.2005. It is also recorded in the impugned order that the conduct of the petitioner goes to show that he has evaded notice with regard to the verification of his certificates and at the same time, he had sent the letter by registered post that he wanted voluntary retirement. It appears from his conduct that he did not want to defend himself. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances itself, it is quite clear that the petitioner can only succeed in this case if he is able to show before this Court that he was having genuine certificates and the stand taken by the Bihar School Examination Board is incorrect. As such, his dismissal in this manner has prejudiced him. However, in this writ application, the petitioner has not stated anywhere that the stand taken by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna regarding his certificates having been forged one, is incorrect and he is having genuine certificates. 5 In above view of the matter, this Court finds it very difficult to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference is made in this regard to a decision of the Apex Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others and Vimal Ghosh V. Vs. State of Kerala and others (2004)2 SCC 105. It has been held by the Supreme Court therein that on procuring appointment on the basis of false certificate, one cannot be considered to be a person holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311. Neither he can plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. As a result, this writ application fails and, accordingly, is dismissed. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)