5. On the other hand counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in view of direction issued by this Court on 26.02.2024, the matter was duly enquired and thereafter an affidavit has been filed and entire things has been brought to the notice of the Court. Learned counsel further submits that issue framed by this Court was “whether petitioner was ever adjusted in the school in question and has worked till the date of superannuation”. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Department vide his letter dated 28.03.2024, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to enquire the matter and come with a report and if it is found that petitioner was working then why his salary was not paid as has been paid to the others. In view of the letter dated 28.03.2024 which is at Annexure-B of the supplementary-counter-affidavit, a report has been furnished to this Court by way of supplementary-counteraffidavit. Learned counsel further submits that it is clearly stated at para9 of the supplementary-counter-affidavit; “that after coming to the notice of Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the Memorandum No.448 dated 25.07.1987 issued by the then Deputy Director of Regional Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh was considered illegal and the Deputy Director of Regional Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh considered it illegal and considering it contrary to the rules, the work of Naveen Kumar Sinha was stopped vide Directorate letter No.29 dated 06.01.2003 and the matter was investigated by vigilance. The appointment was found illegal in the vigilance investigation. During the investigation, evidence related to appointment and residence was demanded from Mr. Naveen Kumar Sinha by them in some way. Evidence related to the employee’s appointment and tenure was not provided.” Learned counsel further submits that appointment of the petitioner is void ab initio and claim as such the writ
