Geeta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 11 April, 2011

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CWJC No.13621 of 2010
                  1. GEETA KUMARI D/O RAM NARESH SINGH R/O
                  VILLAGE AND P.O. + P.S.- TILAUTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS
                                          Versus
                  1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
                  SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
                  DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
                  2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS AT
                  SASARAM
                  3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
                  ROHTAS AT SASARAM
                  4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION
                  BOARD - CUM - BIHAR INTERMEDIATE COUNCIL
                  SECTION, BIHAR, PATNA
                  5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER
                  (BEEO TILLAUTHU, ROHTAS AT SASARAM)
                  6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (B.D.O.)
                  TILAUTHU BLOCK, ROHTAS AT SASARAM
                  7. THE MUKHIA, CHANDANPUR GRAM PANCHAYT OF
                  TILLAUTHU BLOCK OF DISTRICT - ROHTAS AT
                  SASARAM
                  8. THE KARAMCHARI, CHANDAN PURA GRAM
                  PANCHAYAT null OF BLOCK TILLAUTHU OF DISTT.-
                  ROHTAS AT SASARAM
                  9. RINTU KUMARI @ RINTU DEVI D/O RAJENDRA
                  PRASAD SINGH PRESENTLY POSTED AS PRIMARY
                  TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHORI-CUP OF
                  CHANDAPURA GRAM PANCHAYAT OF BLOCK, P.S.-
                  TILLATHU OF DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM
                  10. SHUSHILA KUMARI @ SUSHILA DEVI D/O RAM
                  SUNDER SAO R/O VILL.- CHORICUP, P.O. + P.S.-
                  TILAUTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM,
                  PRESENTLY POSTED AS PRIMARY TEACHER AT
                  PRIMARY SCHOOL, BAHERA OF CHANDAPURA GRAM
                  PANCHAYAT OF DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM
                                        -----------

2 11/04/2011 This Court is not convinced that every authority

or Institution should be set in motion for a roaming and

fishing enquiry against a person merely because an
-2-

objection has been raised that the person has obtained

appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated

documents. It does not require a filing of a writ

application since the petitioner could have obtained

necessary information of the kind on an application of

Rs. 15/- under the Right to Information Act, if he wanted

to know from the erstwhile Intermediate Council whether

the marks sheet obtained by the private respondents was

forged or fabricated.

Let the petitioner do the same under the said

Act. If the materials do emerge, petitioner may move

before the appropriate forum with the appropriate

materials for adjudication.

This writ application is dismissed.

AMIN/                   (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)