An appointment obtained on the basis of a forged document is not tenable in the eyes of law.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 6044 of 2014

Meena Kumari

…

Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar

3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar

4. The District Social Walefare Officer, Deoghar

5. The Child Development Programming Officer (CDPO), Deoghar

6. The Block Development Officer, Deoghar

.. Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK

-----

For Petitioner

: XX

For Respondent-State

: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV

Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV

---

08/11.01.2023

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for

quashing the order /letter dated 23.09.2014 issued by the Deputy Development

commissioner, by which, the petitioner has been removed from the services from

the post of Aaganbari Sahaika from Aaganbari Centre No.42, Saket Bihar,

Deoghar. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to

reinstate the petitioner to the said post.

2.

The specific case of the petitioner as has been averred in the writ

petition is that she was appointed as Aaganbari Sahaika at Aaganbari Centre,

Saket Bihar (Barmasia), Deoghar Ward No.10 vide Memo No. 125 dated

05.04.2005 by CDPO on the basis of decision taken by Aam Sabha. After her

appointment, she was working to the satisfaction of the respondents and there

was no complaint against her by any guardian of children and higher authorities.

However, on 04.07.2013, CDPO, Deoghar directed the petitioner to produce her

appointment letter along with her residential certificate on 08.07.2013. Pursuant

to the same, the petitioner appeared and produced all the documents, but the

Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar issue a letter vide Memo No.489

dated 23.09.2013 asking show cause from the petitioner regarding her residential

status. Therefore, the petitioner filed a detailed reply stating all the facts and

annexing all relevant documents on 27.09.2013. However, the Deputy

2

Development Commissioner, Deoghar again issued a show cause notice to the

petitioner vide Memo No. 637 dated 18.12.2013 to explain about genuineness of

her residential certificate as same appears to be forged one and directed to

submit her reply by 24.12.2013. The petitioner replied the same, but the

respondent No.3 did not found the reply of the petitioner satisfactory and vide

Memo No. 1000 dated 23.09.2014, removed the petitioner from the post of

Aaganbari Sahaika at Aaganbari Centre No.42 Saket Bihar, Deoghar with

immediate effect without verifying the residential proof of the petitioner. Hence,

the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

3.

The petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that

petitioner resides in her own home at Saket Bihar Colony Deoghar with her

family from beginning of her appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sahaika at

Aaganbari Centre No.42, Saket Bihar, Deoghar. It is specific stand of the

petitioner that on the basis of fake allegation levelled against the petitioner, the

respondent No. 3 removed the petitioner illegally. One Chandan Singh, S/o Sri

Arjun Singh has filed an application before the concerned authorities, levelling

forged and fabricated allegation against the petitioner and the said Chandan

Singh is none else, but neighbor of the petitioner and series of litigation is going

on in between the parties, therefore, intentionally complaint was made by said

Chandan Singh and on the basis of said complaint, the order of termination has

been issued, which is baseless and not tenable in the eyes of law.

4.

Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned counsel for the respondent-State

submits that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that

appointment has been obtained by the petitioner on the basis of forged

documents. He further submits that impugned