The main legal point established in the judgment is the void ab-initio nature of the appointment based on forged and fabricated documents, leading to the termination of the petitioner's services.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing of the letter as contained in Memo No. 927 dated 01.11.2012 issued under the seal and signature of District Education Officer, Garhwa whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that the initial appointment itself was found forged thereby he was relieved with immediate effect as the aforesaid order of termination has been passed without regular departmental proceeding that too without providing any opportunity of filing and also without supply of the relevant document to the petitioner and without any regular appointment or without providing any document his initial appointment was held illegal after passing of more than 24 years as the petitioner was appointed vide appointment letter dated 10th April, 1988 thus the order of termination is illegal and arbitrary.

And/Or

(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/direction to the respondents that the petitioner be restored to its original post and appropriate order be passed as the order of termination has been passed without regular departmental enquiry and without hearing the petitioner and only show cause notice has been issued and no document whatsoever has ever been supplied by the respondents thus the order of termination is grossly illegal and arbitrary therefore the petitioner be restored to its original post with all consequential benefits.

And/Or

(c) Petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in letter no. 2905 dated 29.10.2012 (Annexure-15) and also for quashing the letter contained in memo no. 2108 dated 22.8.2013 (Annexure-16) both issued under the seal and signature of the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi as the aforesaid orders are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law as firstly by the letter dated 29.10.2012 direction has been issued to initiate criminal as well as civil proceeding against the petitioner and thereafter a second show cause notice has been issued and after issuance of the second show cause notice, appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled.”

Factual Matrix

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for the post of teacher pursuant to an advertisement and vide letter dated 15.07.1987 (annexure-1) issued by Vidyalaya Seva Board, Patna, the petitioner was directed to appear before the interview Board on 03.08.1987.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that he was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher vide memo no. 1260-1298 dated 10.04.1988 whereby his place of posting was shown as General High School, Rosma, Purnea. The name of the petitioner was at serial no. 3 for the district of Purnea.

5. It is his further case that due to some personal reasons, the petitioner did not join the school at Purnea and made a request for his transfer. Consequently, memo no. 511-5 dated 16.08.1989 was issued and he was to be adjusted at Rama Sahu Arya Vaidya Uccha Vidyalaya, Garhwa, Palamau. He joined the school at Garhwa on 01.09.1989 which was informed to the District Education Officer vide letter dated 05.09.1989 and the petitioner continued his service. His service book was also prepared and he was paid salary from time to time.

6. In the year 2003, the petitioner was asked to submit his entire documents to the principal of the school at Garhwa. In compliance thereto, the petitioner handed over the documents to the District Education Officer, Garhwa on 13.06.2003 which is apparent from the endorsement dated 13.06.2003 on the letter of the principal dated 12.06.2003 (Annexure- 5). The petitioner has heavily relied upon endorsement dated 13.06.2003 on Annexure- 5 dated 12.06.2003 to submit that the letter of appo