IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10747 of 2003 KAILASH JHA son of Sri Sone Lal Jha, resident of village:- Rojla P.S. Kurhani, District:- Muzaffarpur, at present residing at Village:- Mushari, P.O. and P.S.:- Mushari, District- Muzaffarpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary Human, Resources Development, Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Primary Education Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education Muzaffarpur. 5. The Area Education Officer, Sakra District- Muzaffarpur. 6. The Head Master Middle School Mehesi, Anchal- Sakra, District:- Muzaffarpur. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 23.09.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Mr. Zaki Haider, A. C. to G. A. 10 for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows;- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in Memo no. 1899 dated 22.12.2001 issued under the signature of the Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna (Respondent No. 3) annexed as Annexure-4 whereby and whereunder representation of petitioner which was filed in terms of order dated 8.5.2000 passed in CWJC No. 1835 of 1999 order annexed as Annexure-4 was disposed of holding therein appointment of petitioner as primary teacher is illegal and a direction has been given to concerned Headmaster to take proper step for recovery the payment of salary of petitioner and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of 2 mandamus for commanding/directing the respondents authorities to treat the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher and to accept the joining of the petitioner in Middle School, Mehasi at Sakara Muzaffarpur and to pay the salary from October 1996 and further to give other reliefs in the fact and circumstance of the case.” From the impugned order reading as follows: Þvkt ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la[;k 1835@99 esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa Jh dSyk'k >k tks fd ;kfpdkdRrkZ gS] fd fu;qfDr laca/kh nkos dh tkap dh xbZA Jh dSyk'k >k }kjk fu;qfDr vkns'k dks ,d Nk;k izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlesa mlds fuxZr gksus dh la[;k 7669&78 fnukaf 12-5-88 vafdr gSa ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] eqt¶Qjiqj ls bl laca/k esa izfrosnu dh ekax dh xbZ Fkh tks muds i=kad 2016 fnukad 23-11- 2001 ls izkIr gqvk gs ftlesa fu;qfDr i= esa vafdr fuxZr la[;k ds ckjs esa Li"V fd;k x;k gs tks Li"Vr% tkylkth gSa ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] eqt¶Qjiqj us ;g Hkh lwfpr fd;k gS fd ftyk f'k{kk LFkkiuk lfefr }kjk p;fur o"kZ 1988 esa fu;qDr fd;s tkus okys vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh lwph esa Jh dSyk'k >k dk uke dgha Hkh vafdr ugha gSA iqu% ;g Hkh izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd {ks= f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ldjk ds i=kad 409 fnukad 23-6-2000 }kjk ;g izfrosnu fn;k x;k gS fd e/; fo|ky;] ykyw Nijk tgka ls mudk LFkkukUrj.k e/; fo|ky;] eglh ldjk dk QthZ vkns'k cuk;k x;k gS esa Jh >k dk uke ls f'k{kd inLFkkfir ugha jgs gSA mijksDr rF;ksa dh leh{kk ls Li"V gS fd Jh dSyk'k >k dh fu;qfDr izkFkfed f'k{kd ds :i esa ugha gqbZ gSA muds }kjk tkylkth dj ,d LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k rS;kj fd;k x;k ftlds vk/kkj ij iz/kkuk/;kid] e/; fo|ky;] egslh] ldjk dh feyhHkxr ls ogka ;ksxnku dj f'k{kd ds :i esa dk;Z djus yxs ,oa osru dk Hkh Hkqxrku izkIr djus yxsA ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] eqt¶Qjiqj dks funsf'kr gS fd os lwfpr djsa fd e/; fo|ky;] egslh ldjk esa iz/kkuk/;kid ds :i esa dkSu f'k{kd dk;Zjr Fks 3 vksj Jh dSyk'k >k dks osru en esa Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dks olwyh lacaf/kr iz/kkuk/;kid ls dgrs gq, mldk vuqikyu izfrosnu nsaA Jh dSyk'k >k }kjk fn;s x, vkosnu dk fuLrkj mi;qZDr izdkj ls fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k dh izfr Jh dSyk'k >k ,oa ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] eqt¶Qjiqj dks vuqoRrhZ dkjZokbz gsrq Hksth tk;AÞ it is absolutely clear that the authority had found the appointment letter of the petitioner to be forged. Such this disputed claim of the petitioner therefore cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. If the petitioner however can still demonstrate with the help of cogent evidence before the competent civil court that his appointment letter was not forged, he can get the consequential relief but at least this writ jurisdiction would be wholly inappropriate for claiming such relief. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)