IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14369 of 2005 Sunita Kumari, wife of late Rajiv Kumar Singh, resident of Village and P O – Chhatauna, P S – Samastipur, District – Samastipur - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3 The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, Bihar - Respondents ----------- 7 11.05.2011 The petitioner filed this writ petition in the end of the year, 2005 impugning Annexure-8 to the writ petition by which State, upon enquiry having found that her appointment letter was totally forged and fabricated, directed lodging of first information report against her. The prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition was to order for her reinstatement though no order terminating her service was impugned. The impugned Annexure-8 was an order dated 09.07.2001 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. During pendency of the writ petition, an interlocutory application being I A No 3088 of 2006 was filed impugning the certificate proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of about Rs 8 lacs and odd sought to be recovered from her on ground of payment made on this wrong appointment. A counter affidavit has been filed in the present case by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna in which it has been stated that the State received complaints that in 1989, large scale fraudulent appointments had been made. The matter was enquired by the Public Accounts Committee, Bihar Legislative Assembly. Upon examination of records, it was found that a panel of about 200 and odd Teachers were prepared after due selection by the Vidyalaya Seva Board and was 2 forwarded to the Directorate for appointment but against the panel of 200 and odd Teachers recommended by the Vidyalaya Seva Board, over 400 appointments were made, obviously over 200 appointees were not even recommended by the Vidyalaya Seva Board nor empanelled and, as such, there was no occasion for any appointment letter being issued. Upon this finding of the Public Accounts Committee, orders were issued in the year, 2001 to lodge first information reports against the fraudulent appointees. The matter was then further enquired and it was found that no appointment letter was issued from the Directorate in respect of the petitioner and over 200 other persons. Vide Memo No 936 dated 08.05.2004, services of all those persons including the petitioner who figured at serial No 164 were ordered to be terminated which order is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit and gives out the history of the fraudulent appointment. Petitioner has now filed an interlocutory application seeking to challenge this letter of 08.05.2004 and the only ground taken for challenging the same is that the enquiry report and the findings recorded therein are ex parte. Regrettably not one line has been said about the fact that there was no recommendation by the Vidyalaya Seva Board at all in favour of the petitioner. Nothing is said as to petitioner’s empanelment by Vidyalaya Seva Board. Even in the writ petition, no details are given as to petitioner’s application for the said post, the admjt card for the examination, the interview letter in this regard. The petitioner’s sole submission is that whatever may be the facts, no notice having been issued, her termination cannot be sustained. It is in violation of principles of natural justice and, thus, void ab initio. 3 Technically, petitioner is correct but at the same time, it must be remembered that a Writ Court does not issue futile writs. The facts have been fully disclosed by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Petitioner has not even attempted in a single line to challenge the facts or controvert it much less with any substance. In such a situation, there cannot be any doubt that petitioner has no defence at all except the technical defence of principles of natural justice. If, on facts, petitioner has no defence against the allegation of fake and fraudulent appointment, issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the termination would be a useless formality. Court does not enter into this futile exercise. Futile writs are not to be issued. However, even otherwise to satisfy the technicality notwithstanding what has been said long back that principles of natural justice is neither an unruly horse nor a bull in the China shop, I direct the petitioner to fully establish her claim to be genuinely and bona fide appointed with all relevant documents with regard to her application, interview, selection, empanelment to the Director, Secondary Education within one month from today. The Director, Secondary Education would consider the same and after such enquiry, as he may deem fit and proper, pass appropriate orders either accepting the appointment as valid or finding the same to be invalid on ground of forgery and fabrication and pass appropriate order in that regard and communicate the same to the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner was genuinely, bona fide and rightly selected and appointed, the petitioner should be immediately reinstated and orders must be passed for withdrawal of the criminal case 4 as against her but in case it is found that petitioner had fraudulently obtained appointment then all steps would be taken to expedite the criminal prosecution without reinstating her. With regard to the certificate proceedings, they have been pending for over six years and no one knows what has happened to them. In that regard, all I may state is that the proceedings may not be appropriate. The reason being that even though petitioner’s appointment may be fraudulent or none est in eye of law, it is not the case of the State that petitioner had not worked and discharged her duties. It is well established that no work is gratuitous. For work having been done, petitioner is in deed entitled to compensation. Thus, the amount paid as remuneration for the work done to the petitioner cannot be sought to be recovered when she has worked for the said remuneration. The Director would take decisions in these regards within a period of three months from the day petitioner files a formal representation in regard to the post- decisional hearing. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)