IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.350 of 2003 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus VEENA KUMARI JHA ----------- 4/ 22/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent was appointed in 1979 as an assistant teacher by the District Superintendent of Education, Purnea. Years later in 1998 her salary was stopped and she was asked to submit her Matriculation certificate. What happened for 18 years, the appellants preferred to keep quiet. That the Matriculation certificate was verified by the Bihar School Examination Board and found genuine. She then came to be terminated by an order dated 1.12.2002 that the appointment was not in accordance with law. A Bench of this Court held that the respondent held the qualification for appointment and was otherwise eligible and had worked as such for nearly 20 to 21 years and therefore it would not be just and proper to reopen the appointment after such a long passage of time. The termination order was therefore quashed on grounds of equity. Equity follows the law. The law differentiates between none who are similarly situated. The respondent cannot be singled out. If she procured an appointment as the appellants seem to suggest, there was somebody 2 working in the office of the Government to give her that benefit, quite naturally for some consideration. If the respondent has to go, those who appointed her and continued to utilize her services must also go. The counter affidavit of the appellants in the writ petition states that it was decided to lodge a criminal prosecution against the respondent for forgery. The counter affidavit is silent about the actions proposed against their own officers. The bona fides of the appellant would have been apparent if simultaneous to preferring of this appeal they would have lodged a First Information Report against their own officers also. They cannot be permitted to shield their officers for what are illegal acts committed by them to find fault with the respondent alone. Though this Court declines to interfere with the order under appeal, it would not preclude the appellants from dealing with the respondent afresh in accordance with law after they have lodged a First Information Report against their own officers and got them convicted. KC (Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)