IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA. L.P.A. No.360 of 2010 Dularchand Tanti, son of Mahabir Tanti, resident of Village Mouje Harisingh, P.O.Shital Rampur, P.S.Bhakhari, District Begusarai ……..Petitioner- Appellant Versus. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Establishment Committee, Samastipur through District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Samastipur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Hasanpur Road, Samastipur. …….. Respondents-Respondents. For the petitioner- appellant - Mr.Raghunath Singh, Advocate For the Respondents-respondents - Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to G.A.3 2. 4.3.2010. In this intra-court appeal the assail is to the order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.13330 of 2001. The appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’) visited the writ court assailing the order dated 7.2.2001 passed by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna, vide Annexure-12 by which, under the orders of this court after holding an enquiry, the said respondents found the petitioner to have obtained appointment on the basis of forged - 2 - appointment letter and accordingly rejected the representation of the petitioner for reinstatement of service. The petitioner had first approached this court in CWJC No.1262 of 1999 and this Court vide order dated 29.3.2000 found that the appointment of the appellant was cancelled without affording an opportunity and accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 4.12.1998 by which his services were terminated and directed a remit to the Director, Primary Education, Bihar with a direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner, to hold an enquiry and pass a fresh order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, held an enquiry. He also called for a report from the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, with regard to the factual position pertaining to the appearance of the name of the appellant in the record. From the report of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, it was patent that the appellant was appointed on the basis of reflection of his name at sl.no.107 of the panel whereas, name of some other person featured at sl. no. 107. As his name was not in the select list it was found that the appointment was ab initio void. In this background his - 3 - services were dispensed with. It was contended before the learned single Judge that a departmental proceeding should have been initiated against the appellant and before terminating the services he should have been allowed to produce relevant documents to establish the genuineness of the appointment. The learned single Judge repelled the submission of the appellant-petitioner on the ground that when as a matter of fact it had been established that his name did not figure in the panel and the appointment was ab initio void and the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the representation exposits reasons, there is no warrant to interfere with the order of rejection of representation. We have heard Mr. Raghunath Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General-III for the State. The two questions arise for consideration in this appeal whether the name of the appellant really featured in the select list and thereby the appointment was prima facie genuine and whether in the obtaining factual matrix a departmental proceeding was warranted. - 4 - On a repeated query being made from the learned counsel for the appellant whether the name of the appellant is featured in the panel, as nothing has been brought on record, if he allows ourselves to say so, no reasonable explanation/reply was given. Thus, there cannot be a trace of doubt that the name of the appellant did not feature in the select list. Once the name is not there, needless to say, the appellant could not have been appointed. Thus, the appointment is ab initio void. Once, the appointment is ab initio void there is no justification, necessity or warrant to hold a departmental proceeding. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed without any order as to costs. psc (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)