High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Md.Muslim vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 June, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Md.Muslim vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 June, 2011
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             LPA No.1200 of 1996
          MD.MUSLIM, S/o. Sri Mohammadin, r/o. Village- Karanj,
          P.O. Jigina, P.S. Dinara, District- Rohtas, at present Clerk in
          High School Ranbirpur, P.O.+ P.S. Nawanagar, District- Buxar.
                                                 --- Appellant.
                                            Versus
          1. THE STATE OF BIHAR,
          2. The Director (Secondary Education)-cum-Additional Secretary,
             Govt. of Bihar, Budh Marg, Patna-1.
          3. The Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Department of
             Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
          4. The District Education Officer, Buxar and Bhojpur.
          5. The High School, Ranbirpur, P.O. + P.S. Nawanagar, District-
             Buxar, through its Headmaster.
          6. Sri Ram Sagar Prasad Singh, S/o. Chirkut Singh, r/o. Vill.
             Warapkhurd Banswantola East, P.O. Baswankala, P.S. Sikraul,
             District- Buxar, Ex-Headmaster, High School Ranbirpur at present
             Principal Inter College Bihya Bihya, District- Bhojpur.
                                                 --------- Respondents.
          Counsel for the Appellant:        Mr. Rajendra Singh, Sr. Advocate.
                                            Md. Nasrul Hoda, Advocate.
          Counsel for the Respondents:
                                   -----------

04. 21.06.2011 This letters patent appeal has been filed

against the order dated 26.09.1996 passed by the

learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4781 of 1995, by

which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ on

the ground that in the counter affidavit filed by the

State it was stated that appointment letter of the

petitioner was forged and it was further stated in the

counter affidavit that the claim of the petitioner was

examined at length by the government authority and
2

his claim was rejected holding that the appointment

letter of the petitioner was forged.

The petitioner claimed that he was appointed

on 27th November, 1984 and he was paid salary for 25

months and thereafter his salary was stopped without

any termination order. Thereafter the petitioner filed a

writ petition before a Bench and petition was

withdrawn by him with liberty to make representation

before the concerned government authority. The

representation was made before the concerned

authority and the representation of the petitioner was

rejected vide order dated 27.02.1992. Feeling aggrieved

the petitioner filed CWJC No.4781 of 1993, which was

dismissed by the impugned order. It has been stated in

Para-13 of the writ petition that there are two other

persons appointed by the same appointment letter and

they are still working and discharging their duties.

There are two counter affidavits filed by the

respondents. One is by respondent No.4 in which

paragraph-13 has not been replied. It contains the

general statement of the facts on behalf the Deputy

Director Education (respondent No.3) and another
3

counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4,

who is the Sub-Divisional Education officer, (South)

Arrah, in his counter affidavit in para-13 the reply of

para-13 of the writ petition has been given that the

statement contained in para-13 of the writ petition

requires no comment. Thus, the statement made in

paragraph-13 of the writ petition stands unrebutted.

Thus, if the appointment letter was forged then the

payment of all the three persons appointed by the same

order should have been stopped not the petitioner only.

This itself shows that the stand of the respondents that

the appointment letter of the petitioner was forged

stands belied.

Not only this, F.I.R., was lodged against the

petitioner and criminal trial was held in which though

the trial-court convicted the petitioner but in appeal the

appellate court held that the prosecution could not

prove that the appointment letter was forged and the

appointment was duly intimated to a Regional Deputy

Director. These two substantial facts have not been

noticed by the learned Single Judge on which CWJC

deserved to be allowed. Thus, the judgment of the
4

learned Single Judge is set aside and letters patent

appeal is allowed. The petitioner will be taken back on

duty forthwith as there is no termination order but no

back wages shall be paid. However, period shall be

counted for the purpose of pension if the post is

pensionable.





                           ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J. )



Mkr.                          (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)