IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11184 of 2005 SUNIL KUMAR SON OF LAVLESHWAR SHARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VAZIDPUR, P.O. MARATH, P.S. GHOSI DISTRICT JAHANABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION), PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY ISPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PURNIA, BIHAR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NALANDA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ( C), C.I.D., BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 30/08/2010 Petitioner has been terminated from service vide impugned order dated 3.4.2002. Said order is annexure-4 and is under challenge. The order indicates that the petitioner along with some other similarly situated persons had come to be appointed on the direction of the then Director General of Police, namely, Sri S. K. Saxena without following any procedure or the guidelines laid down under the Police Manual. Petitioner claimed to be appointed in the year 1998 and was terminated in the year 2002. According to him, he was appointed by the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah by following the procedure though he cannot - 2 - deny that the recommendation for such appointment had been made on the basis of a direction issued by the then Director General of Police. Stand of the respondents is that the Director General of police has no special power for making appointment on the post of Constables and any appointment made in breach of the Police Manual cannot be said to be a valid appointment even if it is made at the level of the Director General of police. According to them, law is well settled in the case of Sudhir Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2000(3) PLJR, 717. It is also stated that similar kind of appointment which came to be cancelled, has been upheld by a decision rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Nehru Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and others (L.P.A. No. 1496 of 2001) and its analogous case. A copy of the said order is annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Law being what it is and the factum of appointment of the petitioner also being what it was, the termination order cannot be labeled to be arbitrary. An illegal appointment remains an illegal appointment, whatever may be the tenure of such appointment. - 3 - There is no merit in this writ application. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)