IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1010 of 2007 **** Sunil Kumar Sharma, Son of Sri Madan Lal Sharma, Resident of East Tilak Nagar, Swarg Path, Kankarbagh, Patna. …. …. Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Flood Protection Scheme, Patna. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, Advocate ---------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 30th September, 2008. Appeal suffers from delay of 126 days and for condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 6712 of 2007) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay, in our view, appeal does not deserve to the admitted and it is liable to be dismissed. 2. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: - “6. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary and ad-hoc basis. In my view, therefore, the order of appointment (Annexure-1) does not create any enforceable right. Secondly, the State - 2 - Government had in the year 1986 imposed a complete ban on appointments notwithstanding which the petitioner any many others were appointed without following the selection procedure and by unauthorized and incompetent person. The petitioner’s appointment was obviously a back-door entry. Law is well settled that public employment in this country is a national wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same which is possible only after advertisement and wide publicity of the vacancies. It is, therefore, not possible to countenance such back-door entries. The petitioner’s appointment and that of many such persons assumed the dimension of a scam in the State leading to FIR against the persons responsible for such appointments, and has been registered as Vigilance PS Case No.4 of 1997. It transpired during the course of investigation that such authorities and the beneficiaries like the petitioner and others had colluded to produce forged appointment letters. It, therefore, goes without saying that all such persons including the beneficiaries shall be interrogated during the course of investigation and appropriate action shall be taken against all of them. 7. It is manifest from the statements made in paragraph-21 of the writ petition that similarly circumstanced persons had approached this Court and the matter at the time of institution of the writ petition had reached the Supreme Court. The respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that all such appeals in the Supreme Court at the instance of similarly circumstanced persons have been dismissed by order dated 11.7.2006 (Annexure A), passed in Civil Appeal No.5682-5684 of 2004 (Siyaram Choudhary vs. State of Bihar) along with the analogous appeals. 9. It thus appears to me that the petitioner had obtained forged and fabricated appointment letter in collusion with the authorities, and continued for a long length of time commencing from 28.12.87 to 28.7.2006, which became part of the scam in the State leading to criminal cases.” 3. We do not find any justifiable reason to take a view different from that of Single Judge. 4. Letters patent appeal stands dismissed. - 3 - 5. This disposes of I.A. No. 6712 of 2007 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-