Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15029 of 2012 ====================================================== Mudrika Kumar Mishra Son Of Late Yadunandan Mishra Resident Of Village- Bakraur, Police Station- Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Develiopment Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya 6. The District Education Officer, Aurangabad 7. The Headmaster, High School, Slaiya, Aurangabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. J.S. Arora Sc6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 18-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant teacher, High School, Ankorha district Aurangabad vide Office order bearing Memo no. 26-395 dated 20.2.1990 issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar Patna. Under the said memo, the petitioner was directed to join in High School, Tapkara in the district of Ranchi. As there was no vacant post in the said school, he was posted in the High School, Madhe Siwanpur
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.15029 of 2012 (6) dt.18-01-201 2/6 Ankorha, Aurangabad vide Memo no. 21-10 dated 2.4.1990. Copy of the office order dated 20.2.1990 & 2.4.1990 are contained in Annexures 1 & 2. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to High School, Salaiya on 20.10.2001. On account of ailment, the petitioner applied for medical leave on 13.1.2001. A copy of the leave application is contained in Annexure 5. The petitioner submitted his joining on 20.10.2001 which was not accepted by the Headmaster of Salaiya High School who stated that he would accept the same only on directions of the higher authorities. The petitioner approached higher authorities and as no attention was taken, he moved this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 1109/2009 which was disposed of on 15.9.2011 with following observations:- “In the facts and circumstances, I direct the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar for giving an opportunity to the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Director, Secondary Education on 12th of October, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. On that date, Director, Secondary Education will give some time to the petitioner for submitting his show-cause, fixing a date on which the petitioner will appear along with his documents. The documents, produced by the petitioner, will be examined by the Director, Secondary Education. He may also call for the connected records and Thereafter a reasoned order will be passed by the Director, Secondary Education. the appointment of the petitioner is found to be forged, petitioner will not be entitled for claiming his joining or arrears of salary, as claimed the Writ Application. In case the appointment letter of the case, In in Patna High Court CWJC No.15029 of 2012 (6) dt.18-01-201 3/6 is found petitioner legal and genuine, to be petitioner’s joining will be accepted and he will be entitled for all consequential benefits along with arrears of salary. In case, the appointment of the petitioner is found to be on the basis of forged documents, respondents will have option to take recourse in accordance with law.” It would appear from the order of this Court as well as from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the petitioner represented before the RDDE, Magadh Division for payment of salary and also for acceptance of joining. The (Regional Deputy Director of Education (in short the RDDE) directed the District Superintendent of Education (in short the DSE), Aurangabad for producing all the connected documents relating to the service of the petitioner. The respondents took the stand before this Court that the appointment of the petitioner was forged. Furthermore, he remained incognito for four years from 2001 and filed his application before the RDDE in 2004. On consideration of the case of the petitioner, the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar vide his order dated 14.3.2012, contained in Annexure 7 observed that the appointment letter and the adjustment letter are forged and as such neither his joining nor the payment of salary can be granted. As such, the prayer of the petitioner for accepting his joining and payment of salary was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said Patna High Court CWJC No.15029 of 2012 (6) dt.18-01-201 4/6 order in the instant writ petition. Challenge of the impugned order has been made on the ground that (i) no relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner (ii) documents produced by him have not been examined (iii) respondents have relied upon their own documents (iv) certain documents have not been verified and (v) it is no where stated that petitioner’s appointment letter is forged. The petitioner submits that all this were done at the instance of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar. It appears from the impugned order dated 14.3.2012, passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, contained in Annexure 7 that the petitioner was given information to appear through his lawyer on 24.10.2011. Thereafter, the date was deferred to 16.12.2011, on which date no hearing could take place. The hearing took place on 10.2.2012 & 24.2.2012. The District programme officer, Aurangabad was also present in the proceeding. It further appears from the impugned order that both the sides presented their case in which it was stated on behalf of the District Education Officer (in short the DEO), Aurangabad that the petitioner got entry in service on basis of forged appointment letter followed by cover up adjustment letter. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar stated that Patna High Court CWJC No.15029 of 2012 (6) dt.18-01-201 5/6 he considered the papers produced by the parties as well as the materials available in the department files. It has been stated in the order that the RDDE on examination found the appointment letter and the adjustment order as forged. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar on perusal of the files upheld the view that the appointment letter as well as the adjustment letter produced by the petitioner were forged. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar further observed that the appointment letter produced by the petitioner showing his name at Serial no. 2 is forged, as in the records available in the department name of one Arvind Kumar Mishra, village Bedani, Post office Tarhasi, district Palamu was mentioned at Serial no.2 who had been selected/appointed by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board vide Memo no.26-395(Ni) dated 20.2.1990. Furthermore, adjustment letter produced by the petitioner too was not issued from the department. A photo copy of letter no. 153 dated 6.10.1987 and Memo no. 26-395 (Ni) dated 20.2.1990 are annexed as Annexure A and B to the counter affidavit. Furthermore, on verification of record it was found that adjustment letter produced by the petitioner vide letter no. 21-10 (Ni) dated 5.4.1990, in which he was shown as adjusted from High School, Tapkara (Ranchi) to High School, Siwanpura Akoraha (Aurangabad), was also not Patna High Court CWJC No.15029 of 2012 (6) dt.18-01-201 6/6 found issued from the department. On consideration of the reasons given in the impugned order, I find no fault with the order of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar wherein he observed that the appointment letter was forged and as such the petitioner was not liable for payment of arrears as well as existence of his joining. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no termination letter has been issued and as long as termination letter is not issued, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in service. This submission of the petitioner is not devoid of merit. It goes without saying that any further action in the matter is to be taken by the respondents in accordance with law.
Decision
The writ petition is according dismissed. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)