Binod Kumar Pandey vs The State of Bihar and Others

Ajay Kr. Tripathi, J.—On a strange kind of order contained in Annexure-1 dated 26.6.1998, five persons were shown to have been appointed as Assistant Teachers in the schools where they have been purportedly appointed. Petitioner is one of the persons who is before this Court making a grievance that right from the date of his appointment he has not been given salary for one reason or the other despite having a valid appointment. Series of exchange of affidavits have been made between the petitioner and the State from which it emerges that Annexure-1 is prima facie a forged kind of document on which petitioner or petitioners (some of whom had approached the High Court earlier) are claiming or demanding salary.

It is the stand of the present petitioner that three other persons on the basis of Annexure-5 are now getting salary though there was no specific direction after adjudication which was made by the High Court in CWJC No. 3395 of 2007. Only an order for representation was given. Nothing has been brought on record as to what made the District Education Officer change his mind and allow payment of salary. The justification ought to have been given specifically in the controversial circumstances under which Annexure-1 had come into play.

The Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that there is something amiss in this matter. Since it is a question of public money being siphoned off in connivance with may be certain officers of the Education Department in the field, this matter is referred to Additional Director General, Vigilance, who will appoint an officer to investigate the matter and place a report before this Court on the actual state of affairs.

Let a copy of this order be marked to the Additional Director General, Vigilance. The Vigilance authorities will be free to obtain complete set of brief of this writ application and office will provide the same. List this matter on 11th March, 2013 with a report of the Vigilance Department in the case.