ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Along with this writ petition one I.A. was filed, praying for stay in operation of the communication dated-18th September, 1998 which was termed as confidential in nature. The said communication was purported to be made by one Smt. Prabhawati Kumar who described herself as School Inspector-Cum-Dy. Director of Education, Bihar Patna addressed to the Principal, Primary Girls Teacher Training College, State of Bihar. The said communication was about the on-going vigilance enquiry in respect of appointment/promotion of teachers from 1980 till date. In the said communication it was stated that after holding discussion with the highest officials of the Vigilence Department and the Education Department, the authoress of the said communication has come to the conclusion that if financial allurement is arranged then the enquiry can be avoided. 3. From the tenor of this letter it is clear that an attempt was made to avoid vigilence enquiry on the basis of some extraneous means. As soon as this letter was brought to the notice of this Court on 17.11.1998 this Court directed the authoress of the said letter (respondent no.5) to be present in Court on the following date. Pursuant to that ORDER :, respondent no.5 was present and wanted time to file affidavit and her oral representation was that the said letter is a forged one and not written by her. The Court, however, gave liberty to the said respondent no. 5 to file affidavit. Immediately thereafter another supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner in which it has been alleged in para-4 and in other paras that after coming to know the said fact, respondent no.5 made an attempt to cook-up defence with the help of a clerk who was posted in the office of respondent no.5. Thereafter, comes the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 in which apart from putting forward some objections about petitioner's appointment in para-14 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 following stand has been taken:- "It is stated that no such letter as mentioned in Annexure-1 of the writ petition has been issued from the office of Respondent no. V." 4. In the subsequent paragraph also the genuineness of the said letter was disputed. 5. This Court is frequently coming across allegation of fraudulent appointments in school. V." 4. In the subsequent paragraph also the genuineness of the said letter was disputed. 5. This Court is frequently coming across allegation of fraudulent appointments in school. The standard and level of school education in this State is in a state of sordid mess and government's money spent for education is not properly utilised. These are undisputed facts in almost all the cases relating to school education. 6. On the top of that, considering the contents of the letter which is aimed at scuttling the vigilance enquiry, the Court issued notice to the C.B.I. and directed the counsel for the parties to make over all the pleadings to the counsel for the C.B.I. for examining the possibility holding investigation in the matter. Counsel for the C.B.I. appeared before the Court and the only objection which was submitted is that the C.B.I. is over-burdened with many cases. 7. But since this matter relates to a purported attempt to gag an enquiry into fraudulent appointment/promotion of the primary teachers in the State from the year 1980, till date, and there is a flourishing caucus in the education department, this Court feels it necessary to entrust the investigation to the C.B.I. The parties also invited a C.B.I. probe in the matter. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the C.B.I. to carry on investigation relating to illegality/irregularities in the appointment/promotion of the primary teachers and other teachers in the State from 1980 till date. If in course of investigation the C.B.I. finds that the member of non-teaching staff are also in this racket, C.B.I. is also permitted to hold an investigation in those matters on a broad based angle. The State and the Education Department is also directed to cooperate with the C.B.I. authorities in the matter of investigation and hand over to them all the necessary documents which the C.B.I. authorities will find necessary for the purpose of investigation. The Vigilance Department of the State Government is also directed to co-operate with the C.B.I. authorities in the matter of carrying on the said investigation. The Vigilance Department may also make over the materials which they have collected to the C.B.I. authorities as there should be one composite investigation by the C.B.I. The Vigilance Department is to assist the C.B.I. in the matter of holding such investigation. The Vigilance Department may also make over the materials which they have collected to the C.B.I. authorities as there should be one composite investigation by the C.B.I. The Vigilance Department is to assist the C.B.I. in the matter of holding such investigation. There should not be any attempt to scuttle the investigation of the C.B.I. by the Vigilance Department. 9. This matter is adjourned till 18th March, 1999. The C.B.I. is directed to carry on investigation in the meantime and to prepare its preliminary report and keep it ready in a sealed cover by 15th March, 1999. The matter will appear under the same heading before the appropriate Bench on the 18th of March, 1999. This matter is however not be treated as tied up matter. 10. In view of the on-going investigation which is to be commenced by the C.B.I. in the manner as directed by this Court, it is open to the State Government to consider the desirability of posting respondent no.5 in any other place. 11. Let a copy of this ORDER :be handed over the standing counsel of the C.B.I. by 21.12.1998.