Judgment G.C. Bharuka, J. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 5.11.1990 (Annexure 1) stopping the payment of salary to the petitioner as also the order dated 4.4.91 (Annexure 1) by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated with a direction to refund the amount already drawn by the petitioner as salary. 2. According to the petitioner, he has been appointed on the post of clerk by the Regional Deputy Director of Education under his letter no. 9238 dated 18.8.88 which was by way of an endorsement on a letter of request for such appointment made by the Headmaster of Shri Mahabir Trithanker Uchha Vidyalaya, Vaishali, which has been filed as Annexure - 7 to the writ application. This appointment was made only for period of six months. The Regional Deputy Director of Education in his impugned letter as contained in Annexure - 2 has clearly stated that the said alleged memo dated 18.8.88 as endorsed on Annexure - 7 purported to be the appointment letter issued by the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, was forged. It was also found that apart from forging the signature of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, many manipulations have also been done in the office records. 3. Apart from the above factual aspects, the mode of recruitment and appointment of non-teaching employees in the Secondary schools arc governed by the statutory rules known as Bihar Nationalised Secondary Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, made under Section 9 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. The Rules have come into force with effect from 26th September, 1983. Provisions for appointment, promotion, etc. and other service conditions of non-teaching employees other than class IV have been made in Rule 8. The appointment can be made only after due advertisement and preparing a panel. The selection has to be made by a Committee comprised of the District Education Officer, District Inspector of Schools and one headmaster of the nationalised Secondary school of the district. The appointment will be made from the panel prepared by the Committee by the District Education Officer. The appointment can be made only after due advertisement and preparing a panel. The selection has to be made by a Committee comprised of the District Education Officer, District Inspector of Schools and one headmaster of the nationalised Secondary school of the district. The appointment will be made from the panel prepared by the Committee by the District Education Officer. From this rule, it is quite clear that even if any order of appointment has been passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the allegation of forgery is not correct, still in the eye of law it was no appointment and the petitioner can not derive any benefit out of it. The appointment letter of the petitioner even if genuine was nonest and void and does not bind the State. 4. Accordingly, in my view, this writ application is without any merit and, as such, it is dismissed. It will be open for the Respondent - the District Education Officer or the Additional Director of Education of the region to prosecute the petitioner, if according to them any forgery and manipulation has been found to have been made in fabricating the appointment letter or other wish making interpolation interpolation in the official record. 5. In the result, the writ application is dismissed.