IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6379 of 2006 Kamal Kumar Choudhary @ Kamal Choudhary, son of late Mithu Choudhary, resident of Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh (Near Tiwary Bechar) P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna ……………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna 2.The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 3.The Director, Tuberculosis Demonstration and Training Centre, Agamkuan, Patna 4.The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 5.The Regional Deputy Director of Health, Purnea 6.The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea 7.The District Tuberculosis Officer, Purnea 8.The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Banmankhi, Purnea ……….. Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Gajendra Kumar Jha,Adv. For the State : Mr.Shiv Kumar, A.C. to G.A.8 For the B.P.S.C. : Mr.Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. ----------- 8. 21/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of the Director, Health Services dated 27.1.2006, annexed as Annexure-1, by which his services as T.B. Assistant in the Primary Health Centre, Banmankhi have been terminated. It is mentioned in the order that after enquiry it was found that the petitioner had obtained the training - 2 - certificate prior to his passing Matriculation Examination. It is also mentioned there that the certificate of Bihar School Examination Board bears his name as Kamal Choudhary whereas petitioner applied for and got his appointment in the name of Kamal Kumar Choudhary. It is not disputed that pursuant to an advertisement dated 5.5.1997 published in the newspapers, petitioner applied for the post. He was called for interview, vide Annexure-4, which was fixed for 16.3.2000. After interview, he was found eligible and selected and was appointed vide Annexure-6 dated 24.12.2001. Petitioner continued in service thereafter. Subsequently, the certificate of the petitioner of training was sent to the said Institute for verification and by Annexure-7, the Director of the Tuberculosis Demonstration and Training Centre submitted a report confirming the said certificate. After confirmation of certificate of training of the petitioner, his services were confirmed by the respondents. It appears that some time after, some enquiry was made and it was found that the petitioner had produced certificate of training from Tuberculosis Demonstration and Training - 3 - Centre, which showed that he had attended the training course in the Centre between 2.1.1989 to 31.3.1989 whereas he had passed Matriculation examination in 1991. It was also found that there was difference in his name as appearing in the Matriculation certificate. Hence, notices were issued to him in respect of discrepancy in his name. Petitioner replied to the said notice. In his reply, petitioner took a stand that his certificates have been duly verified and found to be genuine. He also took a stand that Kamal Choudhary as appearing in the certificate of the Board and petitioner Kamal Kumar Chaudhary are the same person with same parentage and it was just a clerical mistake that his second name `Kumar’ was not mentioned in the certificate of the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the petitioner had actually acquired training from the said Institute is not disputed. After due verification, it has been established that he attended the course for three months in that Institute and certificate was issued to him on completion of the training. He submits that the surname `Kumar’ was by mistake omitted in the - 4 - Matriculation Certificate. He submits that petitioner has ample evidence to establish that Kamal Chaudhary as mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate of the Board and Kamal Kumar Chaudhary is the same person with same parentage as he had claimed before the respondents in his reply. But respondents did not consider this explanation of the petitioner, did not give any opportunity to establish it on the basis of unimpeachable documents and did not hold any enquiry to ascertain the truth in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent State authorities submits that the petitioner was not entitled to acquire the said training in 1989 as he had not passed Matriculation examination at that time. He submits that minimum qualification for getting admission in the Institute for training is Matriculation. Petitioner was wrongly admitted in the Institute and hence his certificate of training cannot be taken into account for consideration of eligibility for his appointment. He also submits that in view of discrepancy in the name of the petitioner, the genuineness of the document itself became doubtful and hence - 5 - petitioner was not fit to be appointed in service. He submits that in the appointment letter issued to the candidates it was mentioned that if at any point of time certificates of the concerned candidate are not found to be genuine, their services would be terminated. Hence, as the certificates of the petitioner did not inspire confidence, his service was rightly terminated. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that the petitioner had applied as Kamal Kumar Choudhary and therefore in the recommendation of the Commissioner, his name was mentioned as such. He also submits that it was specifically mentioned in the recommendation letter itself that it will be open to the State authorities to verify the certificates of the respective candidates before issuing them appointment letters. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this much is clear that the petitioner did acquire training from the Institute in 1989. It has been proved that he attended the course for three months and after completion of the same, he was issued the - 6 - certificate. Therefore, there is no question of his not acquiring training from the Institute. This is not disputed that the Institute is a Government Institute. Therefore, if the petitioner was admitted there by the authorities of the Institute and was allowed to undergo training and complete the same and he was issued a certificate in this respect before his passing of the Matriculation Examination, no fault can be found with the petitioner for the same. It was open to the authorities of the Institute to verify the minimum eligibility of the petitioner for getting admission in the Institute and at that point of time they should have denied his admission on the ground that he had not passed Matriculation Examination. However, once a Government Institute admitted the petitioner for training without his having passed the Matriculation Examination and allowed him to complete the same and issued certificate in this regard, it is not open to other Government Agencies to deny the petitioner the benefit of the same on the ground that he should not have been admitted in the Institute without Matriculation qualification. Fault lies with the authorities - 7 - of the Institute and not with the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner had submitted his certificate with his application, he was interviewed, his certificates were got verified by the respondents and thereafter his service was confirmed. Hence, it is not open to the respondents now to dispute the validity of his appointment on that ground and terminate his services. However, with regard to discrepancy in the name of the petitioner in the Matriculation Certificate vis-à-vis his name under which he applied for appointment, the same may be question of detailed enquiry. Petitioner has claimed in his show cause reply that both the names are of the same person, which required verification and proper opportunity to the petitioner to establish the same on the basis of unimpeachable documents. Respondents have not done that. There is also no document on record to show that petitioner was given any show cause notice specifically on this issue separately. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in this respect no reasonable opportunity was granted to the petitioner to satisfy the respondents in respect of his claim - 8 - that both the names were of the same person. In the circumstances, without quashing the order passed by the Director, as contained in Annexure-1, matter is remitted back to him to give full opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy him that both the names were of the same person and it was not a case of impersonation, rather it was a case of typing mistake in one certificate or the other. Petitioner will be at liberty to produce all documents available to him in support of the said claim and the Director will also be at liberty to get all certificates verified from any agency as he may find necessary. After full verification, if the Director comes to the conclusion that both the names are of the same person and there was no attempt of impersonation or use of certificate of others by the petitioner and it was a bonafide typing mistake in one certificate or the other, he shall cancel his order of termination, as contained in Annexure-1 and shall reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. However, in case he is not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner and his documents, he shall assign specific reasons for - 9 - the same and communicate it to the petitioner. The Director shall complete the exercise in this respect positively within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)