IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8911 of 2011 Nazrana Begum WIFE OF MD. SHAH AYAZ, DAUGHTER OF MUZAMIL HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF HARIPUR, P.S. AMOUR, DISTRICT PURNEA. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. SSTHE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNEA 3. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, PURNEA 4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, AMOUR, P.S. AMOUR, DISTRICT PURNEA. 5. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ HARIPUR, BLOCK AMOUR, P.S. AMOUR, DISTRICT PURNEA. ---------------------------------- 2 23/08/2011 Annexure-1 is the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea. This order is being challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the District Programme Officer did not have the authority to pass order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Angan Bari Sevika. Petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Angan Bari Sevika on the basis of a degree of Madhyama obtained from Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. In the certificate issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board date of birth of the petitioner was indicated as 01.03.1987. Petitioner is also supposed to have obtained a degree in Faukania with a date of birth registered therein as 03.01.1990. Faukania examination - 2 - was passed in the year 2004 and Madhyama examination in the year 2006. After selection the respondent authorities received a complaint regarding the fraud which had been played by the petitioner for the obvious reason that when her selection was made on 01.05.2007, petitioner was less than 18 years of age on the basis of the certificate issued by the Bihar Madarsa Education Board. Therefore, yet another degree was used since petitioner was less than 18 years of age on the date of selection. Nothing much is required to be done in the present writ application in the face of the admitted position in the show cause which was filed by the petitioner before the Child Development Project Officer, Amour at Purnea which is annexure-5 to the writ application. There is an acceptance of the position that she had appeared in the two different examinations with two different dates of birth. Merely because allegation has been made against the husband who is shown to be a culprit, does not take away the basic finding or the acceptance of the position recorded in the impugned order contained in annexure-1. - 3 - The Court is not impressed by the so called explanation offered by the petitioner with regard to the circumstance under which the two certificates came into existence with two different dates of birth. What is based on fraud and deceit cannot be permitted to continue if the factum is not denied or is not found to be un-true in any manner. The circumstances for passing annexure-1 do exist and no interference with the same, therefore, is required by this Court. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)