IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.67 of 2008 Manoranjan Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sadanand Singh, resident of village and P.O. Sarsi, District- Purnea ………….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The District Magistrate, Katihar 3.The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Katihar, District- Katihar 4.The District Education Officer, Katihar, District- Katihar 5.Headmaster, Druga Prasad Uncha Vidyalaya, Durgaganj, Block- Kadwa, P.S. Kadwa, District- Katihar ………… Respondents ----------- 2. 24/08/2010 From the impugned order (Annexure-7) dated 28.11.2007 of Zila Parishad, Katihar, it appears that at the time of counseling petitioner did not produce training and other certificates and promised to do the same later on. On that promise, he was appointed. However, later on, when petitioner produced his certificates, the same was found to be issued from National Correspondence Institute, Kanpur. Zila Parishad found that the said Institute was not recognized by the N.C.T.E. and therefore, his certificate was not found valid. Petitioner was given show cause notice and after considering his show cause reply, Zila Parishad in its meeting dated 6.11.2007 2 resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner and to realize payments made to him on account of such appointment. The said order had been communicated to the petitioner through memo no.2155 dated 28.11.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Zila Parishad has not taken into account or verified from the documents of the State to come to the conclusion that the Institute was not recognized by the N.C.T.E. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him. Zila Parishad was not required to verify the same. If petitioner claimed the Institute to be recognized by the N.C.T.E. and the State Government, it was petitioner who had to establish the same before the Zila Parishad by way of producing supporting documents along with his show cause reply. Admittedly, petitioner has not done that. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order and hence does not find any merit in the writ application. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. However, if at any point of time, petitioner is 3 able to procure sufficient proof of recognition of the Institution by the N.C.T.E. and the State Government, he will be at liberty to produce the same before the Zila Parishad and request it to reconsider his case. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)