IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9125 of 2000 PRABHUNATH SINGH SON OF LATE SRI NAG NARAIN SINGH, ASSISTANT TEACHER IN CHANDRANAYAN VALIKA PROJECT UCHHA VIDYALAYA, BENAUT, POLICE STATION EKMA DISTRICT SARAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARWAN, P.S. RASULPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, BIHAR, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, CHAPRA. 5. THE HEAD MISTRESS, CHANDRA NAYAN VALIKA UCHHA VIDHYALAYA, BENAUT, P.O. SARAN, P.S. RASULPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Dr. M.P. Shukla, Advocate. For the State : M/S Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C. 15 with Bipin Kumar. ------- 9/ 20-04-2009 I.A.No.2352 of 2009 has been filed challenging the fresh order dated 13.01.2009 passed during the pendency of the application, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and denying salary for the period that he had worked on the premise that he obtained the appointment on forged educational qualifications. 2. After hearing the counsels for the parties the Interlocutory application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to assail the impugned order dated 13.01.2009. 3. The petitioner was appointed by the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Chandra Nayan Balika Uch Vidyalaya in 1981. He joined duties in December, 1981 - 2 - itself. This school was taken over by the State Government on 12.02.1986. It is stated that the screening Committee examined the case of the petitioner and approved the take over of his services, as recorded in Memo no. 855 dated 10.10.1991.Payment of salary commenced from 01.01.1989. Revised salary was also paid to the petitioner. The payment of his salary stopped on or about the beginning of the year 1992. The petitioner has stated in paragraph-9 of the application that on making enquiry he learnt that the local M.L.A., one Hazari Singh, had raised issues of the appointment of the petitioner and of the veracity of his qualifications. This led to an enquiry with regard to his certificates obtained from the Prabhu Narayan Singh Degree College under the Gorakhpur University , U.P. from where he had obtained the same. The University, under the signature of the Vice- Chancellor by communication dated 26.08.1991 confirmed that the petitioner had obtained his qualification of B.Ed. in 1980 from Sri Prabhu Narayan Singh Degree College, Ramnagar, Varansi under the Gorakhpur University in the second division. That this certification was being issued by the Vice Chancellor after examining it from the records of the University. This should have been sufficient to prove the claim of the petitioner. But, because the petitioner was being hounded by a person with political prowess, which the petitioner was unable to - 3 - counter, a fresh query was made from the University. This time the Vice-Chancellor on 11.11.1991 stated that the Institution from where the petitioner passed, had no connection with the University. The Vice Chancellor himself then did a somersault and on 13.03.1992 reiterated his earlier letter dated 26.08.1991 that from the record of the University, the certificates of the petitioner were genuine. 4 Matters did not end there. The authorities then sent a special emissary to Gorakhpur University. The said special emissary reported that the Vice Chancellor himself enquired the matter in his presence and stated that Shri Prabhu Narayan Singh Degree College had nothing to do with the Gorakhpur University. In pursuance thereof on 22.12.1992 the Regional Deputy Director Education, Bihar, Saran Division referred to the report of the Special emissary and then in context of another letter of the Vice Chancellor dated 08.07. 1991 stated that the Vice Chancellor had said that the certificates of the petitioner were forged. 5. From the aforesaid discussion what it transpires that the Gorakhpur University after verification on records reported twice that the certificates of the petitioner were genuine. Secondly, at best according to the Vice Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University the institution from where the petitioner studied, had no connection with the Gorakhpur University. The Vice Chancellor only on the - 4 - third occasion said that the certificates of the petitioner were forged. 6. The petitioner has made a specific statement in paragraph-16 of the writ application that the aforesaid enquiry was being conducted with regard to him and one Harendra Kumar Singh whose certificates were repeatedly found genuine. Qualifications of both the teachers have now been stated to be forged by the Vice Chancellor concerned. 7. It has been further stated in the said paragraph that Harendra Kumar Singh was deceased during the pendency of the matter and his full salary has been paid and his son has been appointed on compassionate ground. This was possible only if the authorities found the certificates and appointment of Harendra Kumar Singh genuine, otherwise the question of compassionate appointment to his son simply did not arise. 8. Two counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State. Both the counter affidavits do not reply properly and refuse to answer specific assertion of the petitioner made in paragraph-16 of the writ application, vis- à-vis Harendra Kumar Singh and the compassionate appointment even to his son. There is another aspect of the matter. It has been noticed that the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University on 26.08.1991 and 13.03.1992 reiterated that the certificates of the petitioner were found - 5 - genuine after verification of University records. On 11.11.1991 he stated to the Special emissary, and in whose presence the Vice Chancellor had examined the records, by a report dated 01.07.1992 that the Institution from where the petitioner obtained his qualification had no connection with the University. Seven days later on 08.07.1992 comes a letter of the Vice Chancellor that the certificates were forged. Surely if the certificates were forged, the Vice Chancellor seven days earlier would have disclosed to the Special emissary that the institution of the petitioner was not connected with the Gorakhpur University. There is no material how and why the Vice Chancellor retracts his earlier communications dated 26.08.1991 and 13.03.1992 from records that the certificates were correct. 9. The aforesaid fact assumes significance in view of the allegations of the petitioner that he was being hounded by the local M.L.A. This has not been denied in the counter affidavit that the enquiry in question was not initiated at the behest of the local M.L.A. The allegations are therefore deemed to be correct. 10. The school was taken over in 1986. Screening Committee of the School examined the appointment. Payment of salary commenced thereafter. It is paid till on or about December, 1991. The local M.L.A. questioned the appointment of the petitioner. The issues - 6 - were sought to be reopened. What happened to the earlier report of the screening Committee after which the payment of salary started. If that report is correct then there was no occasion for the respondents to reopen the issue. If that report is wrong, those who gave the report, were liable to be proceeded under penal laws. There has to be finality to the Government orders. Individual officers working under the Government are not the government. Their individual fancy will not bind the government. They are working under their individual fancies. The impugned order chose not to deal with regard to the decision of the Screening Committee . On acceptance of compassionate appointment by the respondents to the son of Harendra Kumar Singh and payment of salary etc. This Court is satisfied that the officials of the State Government abused their power to hound the petitioner. The citizen has been harassed. There were no legal authority. The harassment is an abuse of administrative power. Costs could have been imposed, but the court refrains. 11. The impugned order dated 13.01.2009 suffers from complete non-application of mind when it refused to take into consideration relevant materials such as the earlier enquiry report of the enquiry committee in pursuance of which the payment of salary of the petitioner commenced after verification. It also refused to take into - 7 - consideration the relevant materials of the payment of salary to Harendra Kumar Singh and consequent compassionate appointment to his son after his death. The impugned order dated 13.01.2009 is not sustainable in law. 12. It is accordingly set aside. 13. Let the arrears of salary of the petitioner be paid to him within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the payment is not made within the period as aforesaid, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise a claim for interest before the authorities which shall be considered by them appropriately. The application stands allowed. BTiwary/ ( Navin Sinha, J )