IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.261 of 2008 1. State Of Bihar 2. The secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint secretary, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Under Secretary, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Govt. of Bihar-cum-The Secretary, Vigilance Board, Patna 5. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna … Respondents/Appellants Versus Bachcha Rai, son of Ramadhar Rai, Resident of Village-Safari, P.S.-Ekma, District-Chapra … Respondent ----------- 6 02.08.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5758 of 2006. It has been vehemently argued by learned A.A.G. with regard to the payment of the respondent that he was not a government employee at the time when an Advertisement No. 13/87 was issued on 07.08.1987 however, he was a temporary employee of the Vice Chairman of the Bihar State Complaint and Vigilance Board. But however, the learned Single Judge ought not have to 2 allow the writ petitioner to be entitled for continuity of service for the reason that the writ petitioner- respondent herein was not a government employee at the time of selection. The above fact has been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents stating that the respondent was an employee of Government at the time of the advertisement and his application was sent through proper channel and the Board has forwarded the same to the appointing authority and he got succeeded in the competitive examination. It is not a case where his appointment was illegal and irregular. We had also an occasion to go through the conditions as laid down in the advertisement from which it is clear that there is no condition which indicates that one should be a government employee at the time of selection. It is not disputed that the respondent has undergone the entire 3 process of selection legally and it is not a case of misrepresentation or fraud. In absence of any condition in the advertisement that one should be a government employee at the time of selection, we do not find any force in the argument made by learned A.A.G. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Vikash Jain,J.)