IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5537 of 2003 MANORANJAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Numeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Panjwara, PS Panjwara, District Banka …… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. District Education Officer, Banka….Respondents ----------- 07- 7.12.2009 Heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.II. This writ petition is directed against the office order dated 17.10.2001 (Annexure-4), passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Banka, whereby the services of the petitioner as a class IV employee of the Bihar Government have been disposed with because the same had been done without following the prescribed procedure. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner was engaged as a class IV employee by order dated 11.8.89 (Annexure 1). He continued for some time. The issue seems to have attracted attention of the authorities as a result of which show-cause notice was issued to him as to under what circumstances he had been appointed. The petitioner did the formality of submitting his reply only stating that he was appointed by the competent authority leading to the impugned order. It appears that the petitioner had been appointed without advertisement and inviting applications from all eligible persons. It was undoubtedly a back-door 2 entry. Law is well settled that public employment is a national wealth and every citizen should have an unrestricted access to the same which is possible if the vacancies are genuinely advertised and all eligible persons are given opportunity to submit their applications for consideration. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in Sanjay Rai vs. State of Bihar [2003(1) PLJR 158] . The same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 4.3.2008, in LPA No.1312 of 2002. Apart from the position that the facts of that case was fairly different, the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1] was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges. The present case is really covered by the judgment in Uma Devi’s case (supra). We do not find any merit in this writ petition. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl