ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The question involved is the validity of the High School/Intermediate Course conducted by the Central Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi and whether it was valid. The petitioner claims to have passed the aforesaid examination and came to be appointed on 22.5.2007 as a Panchayat Teacher, discharged duties till he has been terminated on 7.4.2012 on the ground that his qualification was from an unrecognised Institution. The Tribunal has held that the Department of Human Resources by letter no. 743 dated 23.6.2010 had declared the Institution to be fake. 3. Earlier the respondents had been granted time to file counter affidavit. Despite the fact that sufficient time has gone by since filing of the writ application after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General Counsel for the State regrets that he is yet to receive instruction through he has sought for the same. 4. The order of the Tribunal states that he petitioner had been given more than one opportunity to satisfy with regard to validity of the qualification but has failed to respond. That may have been sufficient ground for the writ Court to decline interference under its discretionary writ jurisdiction, but considering that the petitioner was appointed in 2007 and has been terminated after five long years of service, the issue has relevance not only for the petitioner but others who may have been similarly appointed, the Court does not consider it proper to dispose the writ application on technicality. It would be appropriate for the Court to pass a final adjudicatory order so that the litigant and the State Government are both made fully aware of the legal position. 5. Undoubtedly the petitioner has brought no direct material on record with regard to the recognition of the institution. But he has brought on record a letter dated 8.9.1990 of the Human Resources Department, Government of India, New Delhi that the Institution was recognised by the Government of India and was equivalent to Matriculation/intermediate Examination in the State of Bihar. Consequent to the same in January 1994 the Education Department of the State Government opined that no further orders were required to be passed. The matter is considered sufficient for initiating a debate. 6. Consequent to the same in January 1994 the Education Department of the State Government opined that no further orders were required to be passed. The matter is considered sufficient for initiating a debate. 6. If the petitioner was appointed on the aforesaid qualification it presupposes that it was examined and considered by the authorities. The respondents cannot contend that they acted mindlessly without examining the certificate in context of valid and invalid qualification before making the appointment. But once the appointment was made it did not create an indefeasible right in the petitioner to continue notwithstanding all circumstances. The respondents do not stand deprived of their right to reexamine matters but only in accordance with law. If such a person had been appointed and subsequently it was opined that the qualification was fake he was required to be given a show cause notice unless it was an undisputed case of an invalid qualification and no defence of the like as letters dated 8.9.1990 and 10.1.1994 were urged by the petitioner. The two letters are certainly relevant materials. The extent of relevancy could have been decided during hearing. 7. Counsel for the State relies upon a Bench decision reported in 2012(3) PLJR 699 holding at paragraph 4 as follows:- “4. Learned Counsel representing private respondent no. 10 has filed counter affidavit in support of the findings given by the Appellate Authority. It is stated in the affidavit that petitioners obtained degrees from the Central Board of High Education. He has downloaded and annexed Annexure-C which has been issued by the Department of Secondary and High Higher Education giving a list of all recognised institutions of Secondary Education under the Board/Council, but the institution from where the petitioners obtained degrees does not find mention anywhere in that list.” 8. It does not appear from the order that any independent material was placed before the Court by the respondents. The order is based on the statement and materials furnished not on behalf of the official respondents but private respondent no. 10 drawing sustenance on information obtained from the Internet. The Internet may be good source of information and knowledge constituting supportive and corroboratory materials to initiate a debate. It cannot be considered absolute conclusive material as basis for an adjudicatory order. 10 drawing sustenance on information obtained from the Internet. The Internet may be good source of information and knowledge constituting supportive and corroboratory materials to initiate a debate. It cannot be considered absolute conclusive material as basis for an adjudicatory order. It cannot be said with certainty and finality that every information available on the Internet is correct and stands sanctified by the law. If the name of the Institution did not figure on the website of the Central Board of Secondary Education as recognised Institution it may be relevant material but cannot be conclusive by itself. 9. The aspect of Internet information as basis for adjudicatory orders was considered in (2011) 4 SCC 85 (T. V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Limited):- “26……….In order to show that “Eenadu” is a household name, an extract from Wikipedia printed on 13-4-2009 was submitted by the respondent Company before this Court. In fact, all the other internet printouts annexed by the respondent Company are based on Wikipedia itself. It is the submission of the appellant that it is now an established position internationally in law that Wikipedia does not have any evidentiary value in the court proceedings. The same has been held by the US Court of Federal Claims in Campbell v. Secy. of Health and Human Services and by the US Court of Appeals in Lamilem Badasa v. Michael B. Mukasey”. 10. If the respondents appointed the petitioner in 2007 and opined in 2008 not to accept the qualification it presupposes an application of mind by them to the materials that they may have had with them and a reasoned opinion based on the same. If the reasons are there not to recognise the qualification, it being an executive policy matter resting within the domain of the respondents alone, it may not be permissible for the Court to go into sufficiency of the reasons. In that event the judgment in 2010 (4) PLJR 318 (State of Bihar v. Mamta Kumari) shall govern the issue. 11. On the next date if no proper counter affidavit with supporting documentary evidence is filed or the original records are not produced the Court, to expedite the proceeding is left with no other option than to direct the personal appearance of the Principal Secretary of the Department to assist the Court. 12. 11. On the next date if no proper counter affidavit with supporting documentary evidence is filed or the original records are not produced the Court, to expedite the proceeding is left with no other option than to direct the personal appearance of the Principal Secretary of the Department to assist the Court. 12. There are other writ applications with regard to Institution having similarity in the name as Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. It is considered proper that all such writ applications are heard together. 13. List along with CWJC No. 14322 of 2012 under the heading orders.