IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10742 of 2001 SAHANU RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 23-09-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By the impugned order contained in annexure-4 the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that initially he was appointed on provisional basis by order of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka dated 22-12-1987 when there was ban imposed by the Personnel Department on any kind of appointment and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had been divested of making even ad hoc appointments by departmental letter dated 2-12-1983. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that the appointment was without following in any manner, the procedure prescribed for appointment of Government Servants and without following the rules of reservation. The main issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even if the original appointing authority had no power to make such appointment, subsequently petitioner was allowed to continue in service as a Government servant by different authorities for a long period of about 14 years and therefore, on the ground of implied approval by the competent authority and on the ground of equity this court should interfere with the impugned order dated 19-3-2001 (Annexure-4). On behalf of State it has been submitted that the argument - 2 - Naresh of implied approval was accepted by learned single judge in a similar case of Akhilesh Kumar Sinha Vrs. The State of Bihar & ors reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 391 but the said view was reversed by a Division Bench of this court in a similar nature of case reported in 2003 (2) PLJR) 27 ( The State of Bihar Vrs. Prashant Kumar Sharma.) It was further submitted that where the initial appointment is without advertisement and de hors the rules of recruitment by an authority who was not competent to appoint, the appointment will come in the category of illegal appointment and not in the category of irregular appointment and hence in the present case since the appointment has been found to be illegal, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this court should not interfere in view of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vrs. Uma Devi (3) and others reported in (2006)4 SCC 1. In the facts of the case this court finds no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)