IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43169 of 2008 MANIKANT BHUSHAN … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Shivendra Kr.Sinha For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 4. 3.12.2008 Heard. The petitioner is an Ex-Mukhiya and while he was holding his office in 2005 he appears undisputedly making some appointments of Siksha Mitras. The informant was one of the desirous persons who had applied for the employment but he alleges that the petitioner in connivance with other persons, like Panchayat Sevak, made appointment of persons who were inferior in merit to the petitioner. While indicating the merit it was alleged that the persons who obtained lesser percentage of marks or who had fabricated the document so as to enhancing their age, were appointed. The informant sought certain informations in respect of the appointed persons through properly filed application under the Right to Information Act and the informations were not passed on. The further 2 allegation is that the petitioner pressured the Panchyat Sevak to file a case that the document had gone missing. The police reported the case about missing of the document palpably false. The informant, as such, approached the police with the report. The contention is that if at all the petitioner acting as Mukhiya appointed any one in 2005, the case was lodged in 2008. The further contention is that the informant did not indicate as to what was the inferiority in those persons in comparison to him which did not make them competent candidates to be selected and appointed ignoring the candidature of the informant. The contention further is that the petitioner has remained in custody since 20.9.2008. Rules and instructions are in place for making appointment and if some one violates or acts in violation of those rules and instructions then he is not only acting against the created system but was introducing a system parallel to the recognized legal system. If the allegation is of adopting under hand practice, 3 undermining the rules and regulations then the seriousness lies there in mere appointment of an ineligible person. Likewise, if someone crates or fabricates false document so as to supporting his illegal act then the Court treats it more serious than the real act of paying bribe and getting appointed. The other seriousness which this Court finds is taking recourse to the procedure of law so as to cover up the misdeeds and also to deny an information which a person could rightly seek. This is evidently clear from the report of the police that the F.I.R about the document going missing was false. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)