DIGVIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Board). The petitioner was considered and appointed on compassionate grounds. Non Payment of salary led to the institution of this writ application. The writ petition was disposed on 19.5.2009 observing that if he had been recommended for appointment by the Committee constituted for the purpose, there was a presumption in law under Section-114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act of the legality of the appointment. A fresh verification may still not be unwarranted if circumstances existed for the same. There did not appear to be any such issues at this stage. Directions were made to pay salary in accordance with law. The respondents preferred L.P.A. No.982/10. It was held that they had not been allowed opportunity to file a counter affidavit and barely within two months from the date of institution, the writ petition had been allowed in haste affecting justice. The observation that "presently there appears to be no issues warranting the same" was not appropriate in absence of opportunity to file counter affidavit. It was theoretically possible that on scrutiny the appointment may be based on fraud or the like and, therefore, null and void thus disentitling any claim for salary. Setting aside the order, the matter was remanded for re-consideration. The respondents have filed counter affidavit.

(2.) THE original selection records of the petitioner has been placed upon directions issued. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 29.9.2002. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. He was considered and recommended by the committee on 12.4.2005 for a class-3 post, and in case of non availability of vacancies, for a class-4 post. The District Education Officer, Patna, issued him appointment letter No.323 dated 8.2.2006 for a class-4 post at the B.R.K. Jalan Inter School, Patna City. The joining was accepted on 16.2.2006 and he started to discharge duties. After four months he approached the District Education Officer, Patna, aggrieved with non payment of salary. In his representation he reiterated that the job was an imperative necessity for him in the family circumstances. The District Superintendent of Education directed submission of his matriculation certificate to be routed through the Principal. He again wrote to the District Education officer on 16.10. 2006 that he had not been paid his salary and he was running from one office to another, but no one was paying heed to his grievance. He had reached dire straits. No one in the office was considering his grievances, much less speaking to him properly. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste. He approached the District Education Officer again on 20.6.2006, but received no response. Paragraph-12 of the writ application specifically avers that in between the Principal and the District Education Officer he was sometimes told that his certificates were forged and at other times that he had a contagious disease, unfit to be retained in government service. These insinuations were made orally. He had been certified medically fit by the Civil Surgeon before joining.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State submitted that the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner was sent to the Bihar School Examination Board which reported that the roll code and roll number mentioned in his certificate belonged to another student. The matriculation certificate was an important document for age verification which was very relevant throughout his service career. The respondents never prevented him from discharging duties. They were acting bona fide in simply making enquiries with regard to his Matriculation certificate. They have every right to do so. No error can be found in their conduct on that account. The letter of appointment in Column-2 itself states that he was required to produce his original documents/certificates. Salary was to be paid after verification of his appointment letter and educational certificates. After the petitioner was directed to submit his Matriculation certificate by the Principal, the petitioner stopped attending office since 27.4.2007.