Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). 2. The petitioner was considered and appointed on compassionate grounds. Nonpayment of salary led to the institution of this writ application. The writ petition was disposed on 19.5.2009 observing that if he had been recommended for appointment by the Committee constituted for the purpose, there was a presumption in law under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act of the legality of the appointment. A fresh verification may still not be unwarranted if circumstances existed for the same. There did not appear to be any such issues at this stage. Directions were made to pay salary in accordance with law. 3. The respondents preferred L.P.A. No. 982/10. It was held that they had not been allowed opportunity to file a counter affidavit and barely within two months from the date of institution, the writ petition had been allowed in haste affecting justice. The observation that "presently there appears to be no issues warranting the same" was not appropriate in absence of opportunity to file counter affidavit. It was theoretically possible that on scrutiny the appointment may be based on fraud or the like and, therefore, null and void thus disentitling any claim for salary. Setting aside the order, the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. 4. The original selection records of the petitioner has been placed upon directions issued. 5. The father of the petitioner died in-harness on 29.9.2002. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. He was considered and recommended by the committee on 12.4.2005 for a Class-3 post, and in case of non availability of vacancies, for a Class-4 post. The District Education Officer, Patna, issued him appointment letter No. 323 dated 8.2.2006 for a Class-4 post at the B.R.K. Jalan Inter School, Patna City. The joining was accepted on 16.2.2006 and he started to discharge duties. After four months he approached the District Education Officer, Patna, aggrieved with non-payment of salary. In his representation he reiterated that the job was an imperative necessity for him in the family circumstances. The District Superintendent of Education directed submission of his matriculation certificate to be routed through the Principal. He again wrote to the District Education Officer on 16.10.2006 that he had not been paid his salary and he. In his representation he reiterated that the job was an imperative necessity for him in the family circumstances. The District Superintendent of Education directed submission of his matriculation certificate to be routed through the Principal. He again wrote to the District Education Officer on 16.10.2006 that he had not been paid his salary and he. was running from one office to another, but no one was paying heed to his grievance. He had reached dire straits. No one in the office was considering his grievances, much less speaking to him properly. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste. He approached the District Education Officer again on 20.6.2006, but received no response. Paragraph-12 of the writ application specifically avers that in between .the Principal and the District Education Officer he was sometimes told that his certificates were forged and at other times that he had a contagious disease, unfit to be retained in Government service. These insinuations were made orally. He had been certified medically fit by the Civil Surgeon before joining. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the deliberations of the Compassionate Appointment Committee discloses that the petitioner had applied to be considered for appointment as a Graduate. There were others who had applied with qualifications of Class-9 pass, Matric failed, Matric pass, I.A. pass, High School pass and graduates. The consideration of the petitioner for appointment was not done as a Matriculate, but as a Graduate. He passed Graduation from the Veer Kunwar Singh University at Arrah in March, 2001. The action of the respondents in making frivolous queries with regard to his Matriculation certificate and then to make it a ground for denial of salary was highly unjustified. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner was sent to the Bihar School Examination Board which reported that the roll code and roll number mentioned in his certificate belonged to another student The matriculation certificate was an important document for age verification which was. very relevant throughout his service career. The respondents never prevented him from discharging duties. They were acting bona fide in simply making enquiries with regard to his Matriculation certificate. They have every right to do so. No error can be found in their conduct on that account. The letter of appointment in Column-2 itself states that he was required to produce his original documents/certificates. The respondents never prevented him from discharging duties. They were acting bona fide in simply making enquiries with regard to his Matriculation certificate. They have every right to do so. No error can be found in their conduct on that account. The letter of appointment in Column-2 itself states that he was required to produce his original documents/certificates. Salary was to be paid after verification of his appointment letter and educational certificates. After the petitioner was directed to submit his Matriculation certificate by the Principal, the petitioner stopped attending office since 27.4.2007. 8. The Court has examined the original selection file of the petitioner produced by the respondents. It contains a Xerox copy of his Matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board dated 14.12.1996. It also contains his mark-sheet with regard to the marks obtained by him in the individual subjects pursued by him at the H.S. Bharauli. It also contains his School Leaving Certificate from the same school dated 21.7.2006 corroborating that he passed in the second division. The file also contains the Intermediate certificate issued by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council in April, 1998, with the subjects in which he pursued the course and the marks obtained by him in each subject passing in the second division. It also contains his transfer certificate issued by the M.B. Ram Ranvijay Prasad Singh College at Arrah where he pursued Graduation in History (Hons.) as also the mark-sheet issued to him in March, 2001 by the Veer Kunwar Singh University detailing the marks obtained by him in each paper. 9. The original file also discloses from the deliberations of the Selection Committee in no uncertain terms more particularly the noting dated 10.9.2003 that he had applied to be considered for compassionate appointment as a BA qualified person. 10. The Letters Patent Appeal was filed prior to the filing of the counter affidavit in the writ application. The Court considers it proper to first take up for consideration the pleadings in the Letters Patent Appeal. It refers to the demand made from the petitioner to produce his Matriculation certificate and the photo-copy sent to the Bihar School Examination Board and that the petitioner was absent from duty from 27.4.2007. That the photocopy of the Matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner was not clear and therefore the petitioner had been asked to submit the original. It refers to the demand made from the petitioner to produce his Matriculation certificate and the photo-copy sent to the Bihar School Examination Board and that the petitioner was absent from duty from 27.4.2007. That the photocopy of the Matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner was not clear and therefore the petitioner had been asked to submit the original. The Board had reported that the name of another candidate figured against his roll code and roll number. The appointment had been made on basis of the matriculation certificate which itself was doubtful. The pleadings in the Letters Patent Appeal are conspicuously silent and conceal the fact that the petitioner had applied as a Graduate and he came to be considered for compassionate appointment with that educational qualification and not that of Matriculation. It is apparent that the Letters Patent Appeal was filed in a truncated manner, deliberately withholding relevant information directly germane to the issue and purposeful misrepresentation. The Division Bench was misled from considering Annexure-1 to the writ application, -the deliberations of the Selection Committee that the petitioner was considered for appointment as a graduate candidate and not matriculate. 11. The respondents had a solemn duty to truthfully assist the Letters Patent Court in dispensation of justice. On the contrary they intentionally polluted the stream of justice urging deliberate falsehood contrary to their own records and before the Division Bench to obtain an unjustified advantage. The matter becomes more serious when such action is attributable not to a private litigant but by those vested powers in trust for the public good. 12. The counter affidavit filed to the writ application is a verbatim reproduction of the Letters Patent Appeal conspicuously silent with regard to the Graduate qualifications on basis of which the consideration came to be made and appointment provided. Annexure-A to the counter affidavit is the letter of the District Education Officer addressed to the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, forwarding the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner. The same letter after 'Matriculation'. contains the words 'Inter/Graduate/ Post Graduate/B.Ed./B.T.'. If the petitioner had applied and was .considered for appointment as a graduate, the respondents offer no explanation why the column with regard to his Graduate qualifications in that letter was not marked appropriately for query. The insistence of the respondents on his matriculate qualifications ignoring his graduate status despite' awareness of the same was wholly unjustified and arbitrary. If the petitioner had applied and was .considered for appointment as a graduate, the respondents offer no explanation why the column with regard to his Graduate qualifications in that letter was not marked appropriately for query. The insistence of the respondents on his matriculate qualifications ignoring his graduate status despite' awareness of the same was wholly unjustified and arbitrary. A matriculation certificate is not the only proof of the date of birth as urged by the respondents. 13. The conduct of the respondents is best epitomized in the words of the Supreme Court in (2010)2 SCC 114 (Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh):- "1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahinsa" (nonviolence). Mahavir, .Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal. gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do hot have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." 14. The observations of the Supreme Court in (2011)7 SCC 69 (Amar Singh vs. Union of India) are apposite: "50. This Court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who comes to Court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands..." 15. The observations of the Supreme Court in (2011)7 SCC 69 (Amar Singh vs. Union of India) are apposite: "50. This Court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who comes to Court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands..." 15. If he acquired the matric qualification, pursued Intermediate course and graduation thereafter, any doubts with regard to his Matriculation qualifications would have been discovered at the Intermediate level, if not at the Graduation level. Once he has pursued the higher course, there shall be a presumption of law with regard to genuineness and authenticity of his Matriculation certificate. If the respondents question it, the onus lies on them and not on the petitioner. It is their obligation to confront the petitioner with materials and grounds that the Matriculation certificate was fraudulent and that the petitioner pursued higher education with a fraudulent degree. No such stand has been taken by the respondents. 16. The respondent Board on query simply stated that the roll code and the roll number belong to another. It is not the case of the Board and no such stand was taken by its counsel during the present proceedings that no candidate by the name of the petitioner had appeared in the examination in 1996. The respondents cannot create a disputed fact where non-exists. Errors of this nature by the Board generating litigations before this Court has to be noticed. 17. The Gounter affidavit maintains a studied silence to his assertion in the writ petition that he was being harassed after appointment, no one was lending him a sympathetic ear. He was unjustifiably being denied salary. The dire states of the petitioner compelled him to seek a Class4 appointment despite being a Graduate. A person who secured compassionate appointment eagerly looks forward to his salary to overcome penury. A person appointed after a competitive selection walks in with more confidence, grit and determination. A compassionate appoirtee is a soft target even after his appointment as he falls in the category of a needy person. 18. The Court is at a complete loss to understand and appreciate the conduct of the Principal and the District Education Officer. They do not doubt his Graduate qualification and deliberately ignore the same shutting their eyes to it consciously and knowingly. 18. The Court is at a complete loss to understand and appreciate the conduct of the Principal and the District Education Officer. They do not doubt his Graduate qualification and deliberately ignore the same shutting their eyes to it consciously and knowingly. An irrelevant issue with regard to his Matriculation qualifications is sought to be raised when consideration by the Committee was on basis of the Graduate qualification. Once this irrelevant issue was raised, coupled with the assertions of the petitioner of the manner in which he was being harassed in the office, not denied in the counter affidavit, it needs little imagination that as a normal human being faced with the mite of persons vested with official powers, why the petitioner withdrew and reclused himself. Obviously, he did not have the wherewithal to take up cudgels against the Principal and the District Education Officer who were ensconced in the safety of their jobs and salary. 19. An administrative decision or action by posing the wrong question and deciding an issue ignoring relevant materials raising frivolous issues suffers from mala fides in law. The conduct of the respondents is irrational, illogical and one which no person of ordinary prudence would take in the facts of the case. 20. Such administrative action was held to be unsustainable in (1983)4 SCC 392 (CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.) observing:- . "11. By now, the parameters of the Court's power of judicial review of administrative or executive action or decision and the grounds on which the Court can interfere with the same are well settled and it would be redundant to recapitulate the whole catena of decisions of this Court commencing from Barium Chemicals case on the point. Indisputably, it is a settled position that if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the Court would be justified in interfering with the same. This Court in one of its later decisions in Shalini Soni vs., Union of India has observed thus: "It is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote". Suffice it to say that the following passage appearing at pp. 285-86 in Prof. de Smith's treatise Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th' Edn.) succinctly summarises the several principles formulated by the Courts in that behalf thus:- "The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. In general, a discretion must be exercised only by the authority to which it is committed. That authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it: it must not act under the dictation of another body or disable itself from exercising a discretion in each individual case. In the purported exercise of its discretion it must not do what it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorised to do. It must act in good "faith; must have regard to all. relevant considerations and must not be swayed by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote purposes a 'en to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act, and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Nor where a judgment must be made that certain facts exist can a discretion be validly exercised on the basis of an erroneous assumption about those facts. These several principles can conveniently be grouped in two main categories; failure to exercise a discretion, and excess or abuse of discretionary power. The two classes are not, however, mutually exclusive. Thus, discretion may be improperly fettered because irrelevant considerations have been taken into account; and where an authority hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires. Nor, is it possible to differentiate with precision the grounds of invalidity contained within each category." 21. The need for an administrative decision to be fair and reasonable eschewing irrelevant materials was noticed in (1995)5 SCC 482 (LIC of India vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre) holding:- "23. Nor, is it possible to differentiate with precision the grounds of invalidity contained within each category." 21. The need for an administrative decision to be fair and reasonable eschewing irrelevant materials was noticed in (1995)5 SCC 482 (LIC of India vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre) holding:- "23. Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or any act that gives rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element (sic that) becomes open to challenge. If it is shown that the exercise of the power is arbitrary, unjust and unfair, it should be no answer for the State, its instrumentality, public authority or person whose acts have the insignia of public element to say that their actions are in the field of• private law and they are free to prescribe any conditions or limitations in their actions as private citizens, simpliciter do in the field of private law. Its actions must be based on some rational and relevant principles. It must not be guided by irrational or irrelevant considerations. Every administrative decision must be hedged by reasons." 22. In (2012)1 SCC 157 [:2012(1) PLJR (SC)11] (Sanchit Bansal vs. Joint Admission Board) it was observed:- "28. An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation." 23. The action of the respondents in withholding the salary of the petitioner without any justification is held to be mala fide in law afflicted by abuse of powers, harassing the petitioner unnecessarily. 24. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, is directed to ensure that the petitioner is assigned posting on a Class-4 post at any other school within Patna forthwith, apart from the school where he joined originally. The petitioner is held entitled to full arrears of salary up to date as he was effectively and unlawfully prevented from discharging duties by the Principal and the District Education Officer. The petitioner is held entitled to full arrears of salary up to date as he was effectively and unlawfully prevented from discharging duties by the Principal and the District Education Officer. But the Government cannot bear the burden of those who abused powers given to them in trust by the Government to be used in accordance with law; The Principal Secretary shall be at liberty to recover the "amount of salary paid till fresh date of joining from the salary of the Principal and the District Education Officer. The Court was" inclined to grant interest on the arrears of salary but refrains. 25. The Court expects the Principal Secretary to take notice of the sordid events and consider the administrative disciplinary aspect also, against the Principal and the District Education Officer. The order to be complied with within• a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Principal Secretary. 26. Let the original records be returned to the counsel for the State. 27. The writ application is allowed, and the M.J.C. application disposed.