IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13613 of 2001 VED PRAKASH TIWARI, son of late Phulena Tiwari, resident of village & Post- Jaitapur, P. S. Palanewa, District East Champaran…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Bikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Ramgarhwa-2, District West Champaran, Bettiah. .. Respondents. ----------- 14. 05.07.2010 I. A. No. 1263 of 2008 This application has been filed for intervention on behalf of respondent, Dr. Keshav Tripathy who is the person and the main culprit who is said to have made a large number of appointment including that of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, since no relief has been claimed by the petitioner against Mr. Tripathy, the interview and therefore he definitely does not seem to be either necessary or proper party. That being so, the prayer for intervention is hereby rejected. C.W.J.C. No. 13613 of 2001 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2 Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was made without following the rules for appointment. Such order of termination of the petitioner came to be passed in on 18.7.2001 and this writ petition has remained pending for nine years only at least at the stage of admission. This Court had earlier directed the authority to file a supplementary counter affidavit explaining the present position and in pursuance thereof the present R.D.D.E. has taken a stand that it was Dr. Keshav Tripathi the then District Education Officer, West Champaran who was basically responsible for making appointment of the petitioner and several others and for his nefarious activities two FIRs have been filed against him being Muzaffarpur Town Police Station Case No.271 of 1993 and Nagar P. S. Case No. 29 of 2008. Once this position has become clear that appointment of the petitioner was made without following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution including without advertisement and any selection process, the plea of the petitioner of his being appointed 3 and worked for a considerable length of time will vest him no right and therefore this Court would without going into larger question and following the ratio of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 and State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh, reported in (2009) 5 S.C.C. 65 would dismiss this writ petition inasmuch as the person who made illegal appointment is also facing consequences and music by way of criminal proceedings, the petitioner now cannot be allowed to be taken back in service. Nonetheless to say, if there be a fresh advertisement and the petitioner is eligible in terms thereof, he may also be considered for appointment strictly in accordance with law and if necessary, by also giving him relaxation of age for the period he had been in service. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)