Jharkhand High Court
Amal Prakash Niraj & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 11 July, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
W.P.(S) No. 3830 of 2005
-----
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
------
Amal Prakash Niraj & others ......... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ............ Respondents
-----
For the Petitioner :None
For the Respondent : M/s Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V & Abhijeet Kr. Singh
Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
-----------
By Court:- None appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, learned counsel
for the State is present.
2. Learned counsel for the State has referred to the earlier order dated 2.8.2012, which is as follows:-
"The only charge against the petitioners is that their names were not in the recommendation list prepared by the Bihar Vidyalaya Seva Board and no appointment letter and transfer letter was ever issued by the Director, Bihar Madhyamik Siksha. However, petitioners, by placing manufactured, fabricated and forged appointment letters and transfer letters, managed to work and on verification, the appointment letters and transfer letters were found to be forged, fictitious and bogus.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, I direct let recommendation/merit list prepared by Bihar Vidyalaya Seva Board, appointment letters(in original) and transfer letter (in original) be placed on record, along with affidavit of the petitioners, so that genuineness of those documents can be examined before coming to any conclusion.
State, through the Special messenger, shall also obtain specific information from the Bihar Vidyalaya Seva Board as well as Director, Bihar Madhyamik Siksha to the effect, as to whether petitioner's names were ever recommended by the Bihar Vidyalaya Seva Board and as to whether appointment letters/ transfer letters were ever issued by the Director, Bihar Madhyamik Siksha and the report so received shall also be placed on record by the Respondent- State.
List on 30th August 2012".
Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the order dated 2.8.2012 the respondents after obtaining specific information from the Director, Bihar Madhyamik Siksha have filed an affidavit on 30.11.2012 itself. It has been submitted that a Special Messenger was sent to the office of Director, Secondary Education, Madhyamik Siksha Board, Bihar Patna through letter dated 14.9.2012 to obtain specific information as to whether petitioners' names were ever recommended by the Bihar Vidyalaya Sewa Board and whether their letters of appointment were ever issued by the said Office of Director, Secondary Education.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent- State further submits that the original 2 recommendation of the Vidyalaya Sewa Board are available in the office of Director, Secondary Education, Bihar Madhyamik Siksha Board. He has referred to para 7 to 16 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that on scrutiny of Annexure-C Series( verification report from the Director, Secondary Education, Madhyamik Siksha Board), it has been found that the documents relied upon by the petitioners are forged and fabricated as from the original records it has been found that some other person was recommended and appointed.
In the case of petitioner no.1, Amal Prakash Niraj, he has annexed his appointment letter showing his name at serial no.10 bearing letter no. 85 dated 2.12.1992, while from the verification report it is clear that original appointment letter bearing the same number 85 and also of the same date i.e.2.12.1992 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Madhyamik Siksha Board, Bihar bears the name of another persons namely Arun Kumar Pandey at serial no.10 who has been appointed as Assistant Teachers; similarly in the case of petitioner no.2, Dhananjay Kumar Mishra, whose appointment letter shows his name at serial no. 31 bearing letter no. 292 dated 3.10.1994, while on perusal of the verification report it appears that the original appointment letters bearing same letter number and same date, however shows name of another person Sri Sunil Kumar Singh; in the case of petitioner no.5, Siya Ram Prasad Singh also the appointment letter furnished by him bears letter no 292 dated 3.10.1994 wherein his name appears at serial no. 164, however the original appointment letter containing the same letter number and of the same date finds the name of other persons namely Sri Om Prakash Singh; same is the case with petitioner no.3 and 4 namely Ziaur Rehman and Sita Saran Singh as the letter number and date of issuance of appointment letters are same to that of the original appointment letter but the original appointment letters finds the name of other persons namely Sri Atikur Rehman and Sri Ramji Yadav respectively.
4. Upon hearing the counsel for the respondent, It is therefore evident that 3 the whole basis of claim of the petitioners seeking their reinstatement upon quashing of the impugned order dated 26.5.2005 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand is demolished. The appointment of these petitioners were procured on forged documents and therefore the impugned order terminating their appointment was passed. It was also directed to recover the salary paid to them on the basis of their illegal appointment by the same order and also for taking steps for institution of a criminal case. The specific stand of the respondent- State in their counter affidavit filed on 30.11.2012 after the order dated 2.8.2012 passed by this Court earlier has never been refuted by the petitioners.
5. From the aforesaid facts, therefore, it is evident that the writ petition is devoid of merit as the Director, Secondary Eduction, Jharkhand after having found that their appointment were procured on the forged documents terminated their service by the impugned order.
6. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The 11th day of July,2014 A. Mohanty