IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13330 of 2001 DULARCHAND TANTI, SON OF MAHABIR TANTI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOUJE HARI SINGH, P.O. SHITAL RAMPUR, P.S. BHAKHARI DISTRICT BEGUSARAI………………………..………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, SAMASTIPUR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, HASANPUR ROAD, SAMASTIPUR …………………..RESPONDENTS ----------- 3. 03.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7.2.2001 passed by the then Director, Primary Education, Bihar Patna as contained in Annexure-12 by which, under the orders of the Court, after holding enquiry, respondent no.2 found the petitioner to have got appointment on the basis of forged appointment letter and, therefore, rejected the representation of the petitioner for reinstatement in service. It appears that being aggrieved by an - 2 - order of termination, the petitioner had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1262 of 1999. While hearing the said writ application, this court found that appointment of the petitioner was cancelled without affording any opportunity to him. Therefore, by order dated 29.3.2000 this Court set aside the order of termination of services of the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna with a direction to give an opportunity to the petitioner, hold an enquiry and pass fresh orders. It was also directed that in case the appointment of the petitioner was found to be genuine, he shall be reinstated in service and shall be paid his arrears of salary. It was also directed that in case the appointment of the petitioner was found to be forged one, formal order will be communicated to the petitioner and he will not be entitled to any salary including the period during which he actually performed his duty. It appears that pursuant to the said order of this Court, the Director, Primary Education held an enquiry, gave opportunity to the petitioner and also called for a report from the - 3 - Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division with regard to the factual position appearing in the record in respect of the petitioner. From the report of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, it appeared that the claim of the petitioner having been appointed on the basis of his name in the panel at serial no.107 was found to be factually wrong and in the panel at serial no.107, the name of some other person appeared. Thus, it appeared that the name of the petitioner was not appearing in the panel at all and therefore, apparently, his appointment on the basis of the said panel was an act of forgery at the behest of the petitioner. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar found that since the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio as it was obtained on the basis forged appointment letter, no departmental proceeding was required to be held in the matter. In the circumstances, the Director, Primary Education, Bihar has rejected the representation of the petitioner and has also directed recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner pursuant to such appointment. He has also directed that action may be taken against the - 4 - person responsible for accepting the joining of the petitioner on the basis of such a forged appointment letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a departmental proceeding ought to have been initiated against the petitioner in the matter before terminating his services. He further submits that the petitioner should be given further opportunity to produce relevant materials before the authorities to establish the genuineness of his appointment. This Court is of the view that affording any further opportunity to the petitioner will be a futile exercise. When the very name of the petitioner was not in the panel, there could be no basis for his appointment from the said panel. The fact that his name did not appear in the panel has not been challenged by the petitioner and there is no material on record for consideration of the Court that this factual finding of the Director, Primary Education could in no way be an error of record. In view of such established facts which the petitioner is not, in any way, in a position to controvert, holding a formal departmental proceeding will also be a futile exercise. It is - 5 - apparent that the respondent-Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna passed the reasoned order as contained in Annexure-12 following the order of this Court as contained in Annexure-11. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the respondent- Director, Primary Education. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. The application is dismissed. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)