JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. 2. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1112 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by not interfering with the selection of respondent No.5 as Aaganbari Sevika. 3. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated reads as hereunder: In pursuance to the meeting held on 05.03.2004, respondent No.5 was selected as Aaganbari Sevika for Jaridih East Centre taking into consideration her higher marks in Madhyama Examination. The appellant/writ-petitioner has questioned the appointment of respondent No.5 on the basis of the submission of forged certificate, therefore, she raised objection before the respondent No.4 to hold an enquiry but no steps were taken. The appellant/writ-petitioner, from perusal of one letter bearing No.300 dated 11.04.2012 containing therein the certificates of Aaganbari Sevika employed in the entire district of Giridih, including the certificate of the respondent No.5, came to know that the respondent No.5 used one mark sheet of secondary examination, 2001 showing her as successful candidate securing 2nd Division (359 marks) from L.R. Girls High School, Mirzaganj whereas on a comparative study of the details with regard to marks shown in the proceeding of the Village Committee and the educational certificates provided to Shri Bahadur Singh under Right to Information Act, 2005, it has been found that both are different which clearly establishes that the respondent No.5 used forged educational certificate for procuring job as Aaganbari Sevika depriving the appellant/writ-petitioner. The appellant/writ-petitioner approached to this Court questioning the aforesaid appointment of respondent No.5 on the aforesaid ground. The respondent No.5 appeared and submitted before the writ Court that no forged certificate has been used rather the appointment of respondent No.5 is based upon the observance of rules and procedure. State has filed counter affidavit inter alia therein stand was taken that the fact about the allegation of using forged certificate by the respondent No.5 is absolutely incorrect. In fact, the certificates produced by her were duly verified and declared genuine by the Head Master, Nathu Mahto Kushwaha Sanskrit Prathmik-Sha-Uccha Vidyalaya, Balhara on 05.12.2012. State has filed counter affidavit inter alia therein stand was taken that the fact about the allegation of using forged certificate by the respondent No.5 is absolutely incorrect. In fact, the certificates produced by her were duly verified and declared genuine by the Head Master, Nathu Mahto Kushwaha Sanskrit Prathmik-Sha-Uccha Vidyalaya, Balhara on 05.12.2012. The writ Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid stand, dismissed writ petition by declaring not to interfere with the selection of the respondent No.5, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted that the selection of respondent No.5 is based upon forged certificate as would appear from the document obtained from the Right to Information Act, 2005, therefore, her appointment is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State has disputed the aforesaid stand inter alia on the ground that no forged certificate has been used by the respondent No.5 rather the respondent No.5 has been engaged on the basis of Madhyama certificate in the year 2004 while the question of validity of Madhyama certificate has been decided after its derecognition in the year 2014 only, therefore, the aforesaid decision of derecognition of the year 2014 cannot have its retrospective application which has already been made in the year 2004. According to him, learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter has rightly not interfered in the writ petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The admitted fact herein is that the respondent No.5 has been engaged as Aaganbari Sevika in the year 2004 by calling upon the selection process in which she has been found eligible. The selection of the respondent No.5 was based on Madhyama certificate. The appellant/writ-petitioner has objected to such selection of respondent No.5 on the ground of using forged certificate of Madhyama. The basis of making such allegation has not been brought on record. However, one document which has been obtained by the appellant/writ-petitioner through Right to Information Act, 2005 has been brought on record showing therein some discrepancy in the mark sheet. 7. The basis of making such allegation has not been brought on record. However, one document which has been obtained by the appellant/writ-petitioner through Right to Information Act, 2005 has been brought on record showing therein some discrepancy in the mark sheet. 7. This Court, repeatedly asked learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner as to whether any document has been brought on record to show the Madhyama certificate as not genuine but the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner failed to answer the same. 8. It is settled position of law that by merely raising the point of forgery does not suffice in coming to a declaration about commission of forgery rather the same has to be established and it is onus upon the party to establish it beyond all reasonable doubt. Herein, no such document has been placed. 9. The learned Single Judge, however, has recorded a reason that Madhyama certificate has been derecognized in the year 2014, therefore, the certificate which has been issued prior to derecognition will be said to be valid. In view thereof, if appointment has been made on the basis of Madhyama certificate in the year 2004, the same cannot be said to suffer from infirmity. 10. So far as the allegation of commission of forgery on the basis of some cutting in the mark sheet is concerned, the same cannot be said to be a conclusive proof to establish the commission of forgery. 11. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the fact that the respondent No.5 was appointed in the year 2004 and the appellant/writ-petitioner approached this Court after lapse of 12 years from the date of such allegation. Thus, we not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.