IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1468 of 2009 1. SANJAY KUMAR S/O SRI YOGENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA MOH- JAIN MANDIR MURADPUR, P.S. PIRBAHORE, TOWN & DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPTT. OF REGISTRATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY TO INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE PASUPATINATH VERMA MOH- DEWAN SIRHIGHAT, P.O. JHAUGANJ, P.S. KHAJENKALA, DISTT. PATNA ----------- 3. 26.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. The appeal raises a pure question of law and therefore we are not inclined to adjourn it for that purpose. The submission of the appellant is that he was appointed in the year 1997 as a Class- IV Peon through the process of employment exchange where he was duly registered. He came to be terminated by an order dated 30.6.2001. From the recitals in the order of termination it is apparent that his appointment was made after for calling for names from the employment exchange. The termination appears to have been spurred by the apprehension of the authorities that there was an earlier direction of this Court to make appointment by 2 open advertisement and they would therefore be feeling difficulty in a contempt application arising thereunder. In the counter affidavit before the writ Court the respondents specifically averred that the Inspector General of Registration vide letter No. 972 dated 26.4.1996 had made a requisition to the employment exchange office Sub-divisional Employment Exchange, Patna. The name of the petitioner came to be recommend in the aforesaid manner. The respondents have appointed the petitioner afresh after termination on 20.8.2001. The recitals in the order of appointment are explicit that a requisition was again sent to the employment exchange which published an advertisement whereafter the petitioner has been considered and appointed. Appointment through the process of employment exchange can certainly not be said to be the best mode of appointment. However, the Supreme Court in (1996)6 SCC 216 (Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors.) has clearly held that appointment made after requisitioning names from the employment exchange cannot be said to be an illegal appointment. In that view of the matter, we are 3 satisfied that the order of termination of the petitioner dated 30.6.2001 was itself not in accordance with law. The respondents appeared to be acting more under the threat of a contempt proceeding when the issue of law remained unresolved. The order of appointment in 1997 not being per se illegal, the termination dated 30.6.2001 is not sustainable. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner is entitled to his continuity in service and the order dated 20.8.2001 shall not be deemed to be a fresh order of appointment. We further hold that for the period 30.6.2001 to 20.8.2001, he shall not be entitled to wages only on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. The appeal stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)