IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1278 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 1996/2002) 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Amarpali Bhawan, Patna. 3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education Amarpali Bhawan, Patna. 4. Regional Deputy Director Saran Division, Chapra. 5. The District Education Officer Siwan, District- Siwan. 6. The Principal, Hare Ram Brahmchari Uchcha Vidyalaya Gangpur, Siwan, District-Siwan. -----------------Respondents/Appellants. Versus Awadh Bihari Yadav Son of Shri Sarjug Yadav Resident of Village- Matia Tiwary Tola, P.S. Manjhi, District-Saran (Chapra). -------------------Petitioner/Respondent --------------------- 4. 10.08.2011 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit for the private respondent. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant State of Bihar being aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1996 of 2002 ( Awadh Bihari Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) The writ petition came to be filed by the original writ petitioner (respondent in the present appeal) being aggrieved by the order of the Director Secondary Education dated 24.3.2011 by which the representation filed by him against cancellation of his appointment had been rejected. The main thrust of the argument by the 2 writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that despite all the so called infirmities in his appointment since there has been an enquiry at the level of Deputy Director who has found the appointment of the petitioner to be valid and which was also confirmed, it was not proper and fit for the State authorities to hold that his appointment was illegal and not fit to be sustained. The writ petition under such circumstances came to be allowed and the order was set aside with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits except the salary for the period during which he has not worked. Being aggrieved by the said order the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn this Court’s attention to the findings in the order under appeal of the learned Single Judge in which it is an admitted position that no procedure whatsoever, as contemplated under law has been followed for making such appointment. As far as the appointment was concerned, the same was done from a panel prepared by the District Education Establishment Committee and among the six candidates, since the marks of the writ petitioner was the highest, he was appointed to the post of clerk. 3 Learned counsel submits that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, being a constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court on this issue which has also been repeatedly and subsequently followed in various other decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appointment of the petitioner coming under the category of illegal was ab initio void, and thus the order of the learned Single Judge was fit to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants we feel that he has been able to establish the fact that since the petitioner was appointed without following the procedure prescribed in law which has been held to be illegal by various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, his very initial appointment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In that view of the matter, the order dated 24.3.2001 which cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioner cannot be faulted in law. This Court cannot shut its eyes to such illegal appointments which being an employment under the State are public wealth and all citizens are eligible for consideration for the same and if such appointments are made without following such provisions of law as well 4 as the mandate of the constitution, the same cannot be sustained. For the reasons aforesaid this appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost. Anand Kr. (S. K. Katriar, J.) ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)