IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9963 of 2006 PRITHAVI NATH SINGH SON OF SRI BRIJ NATH SINGH RESIDNET OF VILLAGE JALALOPUR, P.S. DHINA DISTRICT CHANDAULI, U.P. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION WATER RESOURES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PTNA. ----------- 2 24/11/2010 Annexure-1 is the order by virtue of which petitioner was dismissed from service since it was found that his initial appointment was illegal. A reading of annexure-1 would show that petitioner came to be appointed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer without any advertisement, without any process and without following the rules of reservation or roster clearance. Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain and justify his appointment but except for saying that he came to be appointed by an authority under the State and he has no knowledge whether it was legal or illegal, even otherwise since he has worked for almost 18 years, it would have been unfair on the part of the respondents to terminate him on that ground. - 2 - The stand which has been taken by the State in their counter affidavit there is material to show that the case of the petitioner was not in isolation. Large scale illegal appointment came to be made which became the subject matter of investigation by the Vigilance and thereafter the order of termination came to be passed on giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned. Some of those persons even traveled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, details of S.L.P. numbers have been given and a copy of the order has been annexed in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. All matters came to be dismissed by the Apex Court. The circumstance under which petitioner with other similarly situated persons came to be appointed has been put under judicial scrutiny and the case of the petitioner cannot be treated in isolation. It is well settled and established that an appointment illegally made goes to the root of the matter and no amount of length of service is going to make a difference to the legality of such appointment. This writ application is dismissed in the above - 3 - noted circumstance as no case for interference is made out as the reasons furnished by the respondents are based on valid reasons and it does not smack of arbitrariness. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)