APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE writ petitioners in both these cases were appointed as Primary Teachers pursuant to a selection exercise conducted by the Respondent, Government of Jharkhand in the year 2002. Both these petitioners were appointed by the same appointment letter dated 2nd July, 2004 under which about 50 persons were appointed, Annexure4 contained in both the writ petitions. The other undisputed fact about these two petitioners is that they had obtained Teachers' Training Qualification from one S. Wakil Ahmed Teachers Training College, Darbhanga, having undertaken the exam in the year 1998, for which results were also published in November, 1998. The appointment letter of these petitioners contain stipulation at para 1 of the said office order dated 2nd July, 2004 that their appointments were purely temporary. Para 3 of the said order indicates that the appointments are being made on the basis of the affidavits submitted by the respective candidates without verification at the relevant point of time. Paras 3 and 4 together categorically stated that if the relevant certificates of the candidates including Teachers' Training Qualification which were obtained from the recognized Institution were found to be forged, their appointment could be terminated at any point of time. The petitioners' appointment was terminated by the impugned order dated 1st July, 2005 bearing Memo No. 2213 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribgh, Annexure9 in respect of the petitioner, namely, Kumari Swapna (W.P.(S) No. 4176 of 2005) and vide letter dated 20th May, 2005 issued by the same authority, Annexure6 in respect of petitioner, namely, Suman Kumar Sinha (W.P.(S) No. 3180 of 2005). The impugned order of termination of these two petitioners indicated that during verification of their certificates of Teachers' Training obtained from the said S. Wakil Ahmed Teachers Training College, Darbhanga, it was found that they were canceled by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga through letter dated 29th February, 2000. The impugned order of termination therefore indicated that since the appointments were made on the basis of certificates which were already canceled in respect of said College by the University in question, their appointment were liable to be terminated and were accordingly terminated.
(3.) THE petitioner in one of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4176 of 2005 had also challenged the order dated 29th February, 2000, Annexure12 whereby the admission, examination, result and markssheet issued and provisional certificates of the said college along with other colleges were canceled. Though such a prayer was made belatedly by the writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3180 of 2005, but the same was not allowed to be challenged in the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 199 of 2008 preferred by the said petitioner, which was rejected on 6th November, 2012. However, both the cases were tagged together and thereafter have been heard on merits.;