Chandra Narayan Mishra v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

authority, namely, Mr. Chandrika Mishra, Assistant Labour Commissioner, are still being allowed to continue in service and therefore, petitioner should discriminated in the matter of his being edged out of service. In this respect, counsel for the petitioner would also rely on his order of appointment dated 3rd February, 1989 (Annexure- 1), order of termination dated 24th July, 1989 (Annexure-2) and his order of reinstatement dated 18th September, 1989 which was issued to the petitioner vide memo no. 462 dated 22nd September, 1989. Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of these documents would submit that here is a foolproof case where the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of reinstatement in service with a direction to the respondents to make full payment of his salary for the period 22nd September, 1989 till date. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the very basis of the claim of the petitioner on a document as contained in Annexure-3 being memo no.462 3 dated 22nd September, 1989 suggesting it to be an order of reinstatement of service of the petitioner, is untenable as it is based on a forged and fabricated document.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State would also point out that Mr. Chandrika Mishra had made a large number of illegal appointment and at least from the appointment letter of the petitioner itself as contained in Annexure-1, it would be clear that not only interpolation in the official records in the date of issue of appointment letter has been made but even the procedure for appointment on the post of Peon was not followed. This Court taking consideration the materials available on record and the aforementioned submissions would find that here is a case of blatant illegal appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Peon by an order of Mr. Chandrika Mishra without getting the post advertised who had firstly prepared the appointment letter in the date of 3rd February, 1989 as is clear from the office order mentioned at the top and the memo 4 portion thereof had also been prepared in the month of January as would appear from the forwarding memo.

Such appointment letter with a clear interpolation in the date and contents would definitely by itself be a proof of the illegality done in favour of the petitioner by Mr. Chandrika Mishra. What relationship the two Mishras were sharing in this clandestine deal of illegal appointment can be found by an enquiry by the authorities but then this much is clear that Annexure-1 was itself issued in a wholly illegal manner. Te termination from service of the petitioner by an order dated 24th July, 1989, if at all it was intended to create some right in the petitioner of continuation of service beyond six months was definitely again made a subject matter of further enquiry wherein the petitioner came out with a forged order of reappointment/reinstatement as contained in Annexure-3 and about which the respondents in counter affidavit a categorical stand of its being a forged document. This Court in the absence of any rejoinder affidavit to the said counter 5 affidavit filed by the petitioner will have no option but to accept the stand of the respondents as with regard to Annexure-3 being a forged document.

Once the claim of the petitioner is found to be based on a forged document, the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be available to him, in a , wholly discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner, therefore, having not approached this Court with clean hand, will not be entitled for the relief which has been prayed for by him in this writ application. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated persons like the petitioner who were also appointed by Mr. Chandrika Mishra as would appear from the contents of the letter dated 14th May, 1990 and their services have been reinstated by the order of this Court dated

30.4.1991 in CWJC No. 3920 of 1990, cannot be gone into as the petitioner has not impleaded any one of them as a party to this writ application. If the authorities, however, would find that any person allegedly pointed 6 by Mr. Chandrika Mishra, the then Assistant Labour Commissioner is still continuing in service though such appointment is illegal like that of the petitioner, the respondent Labour Commissioner will be under obligation to take appropriate action for removal of such persons from service after complying the principles of natural justice. In any event, an illegal appointment of a person like the petitioner cannot be saved by compelling the Respondents to continue the petitioner in service only because he would claim that others also retained were illegally appointed. This aspect however can be gone into by the Respondents definitely obligation to remove each and every person from services whose appointment was equally illegal as that of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, this application must be and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)