IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.630 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 11.1.2010. We have heard Sri Chandrashekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant Anil Kumar Jha who questions the propriety of order dated 23.9.2008 passed by a writ court in C.W.J.C.No.4463 of 2003. The learned senior counsel has submitted that while passing the impugned judgement the Hon’ble Judge was oblivious of two decisions of this court which were rendered in situation akin to that of the present appellant in which similarly situated appointees who had enjoyed the benefits of appointment for quite some long period and whose service records had also been consolidated, were ordered to be continued in employment. The contention has been contested seriously by the learned SC 21 by citing before us a decision reported in 1987 PLJR 1087(FB) Reeta Mishra Vrs. State of Bihar and also another Bench decision of this court reported in 2009(3) PLJR 202 Ashok Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar which placed reliance upon Reeta Mishra (Supra) - 2 - to hold that illegally appointed persons cannot seek regularization and cannot be directed to be regularized. The very opening line of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Judge indicates as to how the appellant was taken into employment. The learned Judge has chosen to describe the appointment as “back door entry without compliance with article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is too well known to be reiterated that if the very appointment is in infraction of the rules, i.e., to say, that if it has been made without following the rules of appointment, one could not claim regularization or safety of the Constitution of India specially of Article 311 and provisions contained under other part of the Constitution. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the learned Judge passing the impugned order and in that light, we do not find any merit in the L.P.A. The same is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. ) ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)