IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4455 of 2007
Bhupendra Kumar Sharma, son of late Radha Krishn Singh, resident of
village Khokhara, P.S. Kalyanpur, District East Champaran at Motihari,
Assistant Teacher, Sitaram High School, Lal Saraiya Colony P.S.
Bettiah, District West Champaran at Bettiah
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt.
of Bihar, New Secretariat (Bikash Bhawan) Patna
3. The Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New
Secretariat (Bikas Bhawan), Patna
4. The Deputy Director, Govt. of Bihar, Bihar Secondary Education
Officer Budh Marg, Patna- 800001
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur
6. The District Education Officer West Champaran at Bettiah
... Respondents
----------------------------------
2. 18.8.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the
respondents are present.
From the perusal of the record it would be clear that
the petitioner’s services had been terminated on 12.11.2003 on the
ground that his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher was
based on a forged appointment letter. From the perusal of the
counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, whose copy was
refused to be accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on
the ground that he has got no instruction, it would be clear that
infact a full-fledged enquiry was made with regard to the alleged
claim of process of selection to have been undergone in the case of
the petitioner in the office of Vidyalaya Sewa Board whereafter it
was discovered that the name of the petitioner was not even
included in the selected list of teachers of Vidyalaya Sewa Board.
Consequently it was not difficult for the respondents to come to a
2
conclusion that the appointment letter produced by the petitioner
was a forged appointment letter, inasmuch as the same had given
reference to a recommendation made by the Vidyalaya Sewa
Board. The detailed reasons given in the counter affidavit would
also leave nothing for speculation that it was the petitioner who
had indulged in such act of forgery and playing fraud for his own
pecuniary benefit by way of drawing salary against a forged
appointment letter.
As a matter of fact the writ jurisdiction for
adjudicating such disputed claim would be wholly inappropriate
and thus following the orders passed by this Court on 16.7.2010 in
C.W.J.C.No. 2406/2002, C.W.J.C.No. 277/2002, C.W.J.C.No.
3352/2002 and C.W.J.C.No. 3353/2002 as also a subsequent order
dated 3.5.2011 in C.W.J.C.No. 15214/2007 and C.W.J.C.No.
16259/2007 this Court would hold this writ application to be not
maintainable and would, accordingly, dismiss this writ application.
Such dismissal of the writ application, however, will
not stand in the way of the petitioner of moving appropriate Civil
Court for seeking a declaration that his so called appointment letter
is not forged or fraudulent.
With the aforementioned observation, this
application is dismissed.
(Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)
Surendra/