IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1954 of 2004 1. CHANDRA KISHORE YADAV SON OF SRI ABHINANDAN PRASAD YADAV RESIDERNT OF VILLAGE BHALAHI, P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. 2. HARWENDRA KUMAR SON OF SRI DEVI DUTTA PD. YADAV VILLAGE DUMARIYA, P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTIRCT MADHEPURA. 3. ARVIND PRASAD YADAV SON OF BINDESHWARI YADAV RESIDNET OF VILLAGE RAGHUNATHPUR, P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. D.I.G., PURNEA RANGE, PURNIA. 4. D.I.G. SAHARSA RANGE, SAHARSA. 5. S. P. KATIHAR. 6. S.P. SAHARSA, 7. S.P. PURNEA. 8. S.P. DARBHANGA. ----------- 3 02/07/2010 Shorn of all other details, the basic fact is that the petitioners came to be appointed on the post of constable under special circumstance by the then Director General- cum-Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. Appointment made in such special circumstance became controversial. Matter was re-examined by the government and large number of persons thereafter came to be dismissed from service for the reasons that the procedure prescribed both under the Police Act as well as Police Manual - 2 - was not followed. It is already settled law that the Director General of Police has no extraordinary power vested in him to make appointments either under the Police Act or the Police Manual. That may be borne out from the decision 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 categorically held that the Director General of Police has no power to make appointment of constable because when a power is vested in a particular authority then that authority alone has to exercise that power. No other authority, however high he may be, can usurp the jurisdiction or exercise that power merely by virtue of holding a post. The issue being well settled and in absence of any pleading to show that the appointment of the petitioners was made after following the procedure laid down under the rules and law, the respondents have done no wrong in terminating their services along with other similarly situated persons. No amount of hardship or otherwise can justify an illegal appointment when specially it has been made in breach of all settled principles and procedure by a person who - 3 - misused his position and power while being at the helms of affair at the relevant time. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)