IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4553 of 2004 SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SRI RAM PRAVESH THAKUR OF VILLAGE & P.O. BALHA, P.S. CHAKSHERI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE, TIRHUT RANGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SITAMARHI. ----------- 3 20/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been removed from service by order dated 28.08.2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi as contained in annexure-8. Background to the present case is that the petitioner was one of the candidates who responded to advertisement no. 1/93, participated in the process of selection but was not appointed to the post. He approached the then Director General of Police with a claim that he was an athlete who had represented the State on many occasions and, therefore, in special circumstance his case ought to be considered for appointment. Application of the petitioner made to the Director General of Police was accepted by then Director General of Police and an - 2 - endorsement was made for his appointment. That is how the petitioner came to be appointed. Later on it transpired that the authorities raised objection with regard to the appointment made of the petitioner by the then Director General of Police by giving a goby to the procedure and the rules. He was given an opportunity to show cause as to the basis of his selection for appointment. Except for what has been recorded in the earlier part of the order he had nothing to offer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of a decision rendered in the case of Kamal Chandra Sah Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2006(3) PLJR., 468 that an appointment made by the State Government under special circumstance cannot be terminated on the ground of violation of Police Manual. Stand of the State is that the Director General of Police has no special power under the Bihar Police Manual to make appointment of constables. Rule 666(b) lays down the procedure. It is a case where the petitioner failed to make it to the list of selected candidates in the recruitment drive and he came to be appointed on the personal intervention of the - 3 - then Director General of Police on an endorsement made on his application. It is categorical statement of the respondents that no person with the height less than 175 cms. had been appointed in that recruitment. Petitioner was not qualified to be appointed but had been appointed on the intervention of the Director General of Police by virtue of the post. Law on this issue is also settled by a Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2000(3) PLJR, 717 where it has been held that no person, however, high he may be, has authority to exercise if the power is not vested in him under the statute. Nowhere in the Police Manual the Director General of Police has been vested with the power to appoint a constable even if it was a case of athlete having many certificates to his credit. An appointment made in breach of the Rules and procedure cannot be said to be an appointment in the eye of law. That would per se violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the recommendation made by the Director General of Police for his appointment was accepted or approved by the State Government. The fact that the State authorities raised - 4 - objection on such appointment itself shows that decision to appoint the petitioner was based on personal whims and fancy of the Director General of Police rather than in due consideration of such recommendation having been made by the Director General of Police to the State authorities for considering the case of the petitioner in special circumstance. Petitioner has to go the way he came. No interference is required in the decision contained in annexure- 8. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed as such. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)