IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1384 of 2010 Md. Mahboob Alam son of Late Md. Tahir, resident of Village.- Girda, P.O. and P.S. Jokihat, Distt.- Araria Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director-In-Chief, Health Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Kishanganj, Distt.- Kishanganj 5. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Kishanganj, Distt.- Kishanganj Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr.Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate Mr.Md. Zainul Quamar,Advocate Mr.Md.Nurul Hoda, Advocate Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Prashant Pratap, GPVI Mr Asit Kumar Jha,A.C. to G.P.VI ------- 04 06.07.2011 Heard Mr.Satish Chandra Mishra for the appellant and Mr.Asit Kumar Jha, Assistant Counsel to G.P.VI. 2. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.15482 of 2009 (Md. Mahboob Alam Vrs. The State of Bihar and ors.), and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 25.2.2010, whereby a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition, and termination of the services of the petitioner has been upheld. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this appeal may be indicated. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a daily wager by the Superintendent, Tuberculosis Hospital, Koilwar, Bhojpur, by order bearing 2 no.161, dated 24.3.1983. He joined and discharged his duties. Since his services were found satisfactory, he was given extension and was allowed to continue by order dated 10.7.1989. His services were regularized against a class III post by the orders of the Superintendent. He was transferred from Koilwar to Purnea, and his services were placed under the administrative control of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea, by letter no.836, dated 17.10.1989, where he did join. After some query, his services were dispensed with by order dated 16.10.2004, which, inter alia, stated that he had never worked at all till then, and no salary was paid to him. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring CWJC No.15256 of 2004, which was disposed of with other writ petitions and L.P.A.No.946 of 2003, with the direction to the State Government to constitute a five-member Committee to examine the legality of appointment and termination of engagement of such employees. The Committee examined the petitioner’s case and stated in its report that he rested his case on false and fabricated documents leading to the present petition which has been dismissed by order dated 25.2.2010. 4. While assailing the validity of the order of the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment dated 29.3.2010, of a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.No.230 of 2011 (State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Binay Kumar Singh), whereby similar recommendation of the 3 five-member committee has been set aside. He further submits that the learned single Judge has erred in recording adverse findings. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken us through the order of the learned single Judge and has supported the same. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that sometimes in the year 2004, suspicion grew about the validity of the appellant’s appointment leading to a detailed enquiry in the department. Show-cause was issued to the appellant. The concerned authority had examined all the relevant documents and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was never appointed, no appointment letter was issued to him, he had never worked, and he had never been paid any remuneration at all. Scrutiny of the acquittance roll clearly indicates that the appellant had never worked at all. The despatch register did not show issuance of the aforesaid order dated 10.7.1989, whereby his services were alleged to have been regularized. His name is not mentioned in the Attendance Register. The competent authority had, therefore, reached the conclusion that the appellant claimed appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated letters. 6.1 To this this has to be added the finding of the 4 five-member committee. The appellant’s case for initial engagement and regularization is based on forged and fabricated documents. The contents of the letters of appointment or regularization are unworthy of reliance. We take judicial notice of the fact that the State Government or its competent authorities never issued appointment letters where the appellant is to be paid remuneration subject to availability of fund, which we consider to be an important circumstance to show that the appellant’s case is false and fabricated 6.2 To this has to be added the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that the first letter of appointment dated 24.3.1983, made a clear statement that the appellant will work as a daily wager, but shall be paid on availability of funds. We agree with the observation of the learned single Judge that this is an unusual condition of appointment, which per se casts doubt on the initial engagement of the appellant. The learned single Judge has further found that there is no material on record to show that the appellant was engaged against a sanctioned vacant post. She has also held that no entry with respect to appointment of the appellant in any of the registers or documents maintained by the State Government in routine course of business was found. She has also found that after the alleged regularization of service of the appellant, his service book was never opened which is a strong circumstance to show that his service was never regularized. We entirely agree with 5 the view taken by the learned Single Judge.. 6.3 We are of the view that the appellant has been let off very lightly, no criminal case having been started against him. 7. This case is fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1, as well as The State of Karnatka Vs. M.L.Kesari 2010(9) SCC 247, wherein it has been held that there is no question of regularization if the initial appointment is illegal, the incumbent did not possess the requisite qualifications, and/or was appointed against a non-sanctioned post. The situation in the present case is far worse. The appellant is guilty of fraud and forgery, has subjected the State Government, and burdened this Court, with most unwanted matters. He has, by the protracted proceedings, made an attempt to establish that he had the requisite qualification for the post in question or he was appointed against a sanctioned post, and instead made a blatant attempt to rest his case on forged and fabricated documents which has engaged the authorities and this Court incessantly. 8.In the result, this appeal is dismissed. psc ( S.K.Katriar,J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J. )