IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9345 of 2005 BIRENDRA LAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 11.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Constable does not suffer from any infirmity once it is admitted by the petitioner himself that his appointment was not made pursuant to any advertisement and/or selection. The only plea taken by the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was working as a Home-Guard and therefore, he was given a preferential treatment in the matter of appointment on the post of Constable, would itself go to show that the procedure laid down in the Police Manual for appointment on the post of Constable was not followed. Such appointment would be per-se illegal and for that if the petitioner was given a show-cause notice and his reply thereof was considered, that would be sufficient compliance of the principle of natural justice. 2 Counsel for the petitioner, in fact, would only make a grievance that two of such letters being letter no. 6324/P-220.9.2000 and letter no. 2083/P-2 dated 6.6.2003 were not served on the petitioner which had prejudiced the petitioner in filing his show-cause reply. This Court would find that no such plea of prejudice was even raised by him in his show-cause reply which is on record by way of Annexure-5 to this writ application. It is well settled that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice particularly in the light of prejudice will have to be established before a person can claim relief on this ground. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)