NAVIN SINHA, J.

We have heard counsel for the Appellant and the State.

2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 18.2.2013 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 14861 of 2009. The learned Single Judge upheld the conclusion of the Five Member Committee that the appointment letter of the petitioner was forged on basis of alleged interpolation in the Issue-Register in between Issue Nos. 1579 and 1522 including difference of handwriting.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue for his appointment being forged had to be determined from the appointment letter itself and not from the Issue Register. He relies on 2001(3) PLJR (SC) 187 (Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar).

4. Counsel for the State submits that the appointment of the appellant has been scrutinized by Five Member Committee pursuant to the directions of the Court.

5. We find from the records that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.2.2003 that his appointment was illegal/forged. Three months later on 26.7.2003, another show cause notice was issued that procedures for appointment had not been followed. It did not include the issue for any forged appointment. The appellant replied to the same. T