IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.922 of 2005 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus DILIP KUMAR ROY ----------- Reg:- I.A. No. 4170 of 2005 04 18.7.2008 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. We now take up the case on merit. State of Bihar and its Officers, aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 12996 of 2000, have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner- respondent challenged the order dated 17.11.2000 by which his service was terminated. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petitioner-respondent was initially appointed on a Class IV post on 1.6.1985 on daily wages and thereafter on the recommendation of the Establishment committee regularized, on a vacant sanctioned post from 2 1.4.1988. The order of regularization however indicated that the same would be subject to the approval of the State Government. No approval came and petitioner continued to work. After fifteen years, his service has been terminated by the order impugned in the writ application. The learned Single Judge taking into account that the writ petitioner had worked for long fifteen years and his appointment having been made on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee, quashed the order of termination. Junior Counsel to Government Advocate No.V contends that the appointment of the writ petitioner was illegal and therefore mere passage of time shall not validate his appointment. He further contends that nothing prevents the State Government to terminate the appointment, which is illegal. Writ petitioner’s case that his service was regularized on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee has not been disputed. It was subject to the approval of the State Government. The State Government did 3 not take any decision for long fifteen years and the writ petitioner continued in service. In these facts it can not be said that appointment has been made without following semblance of procedure known to law. Position would have different had the appointment made without following any procedure known to law. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in quashing the order of termination and allowing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J.) A.Kumar