IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.258 OF 1998 DHARMENDRA KUMAR, S/O SRI BAIDYANATH PATHAK, R/O VILLAGE KHARAUNA DIH, P.S. KHURAHANI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER IN THE GOVERNMENT BASIC SCHOOL MANJHI BHANDARI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 5.DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SITAMARHI. 6.HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT BASIC SCHOOL, MANJHI BHANDARI, SITAMARHI. 7.TREASURY OFFICER, SITAMARHI, DISTRICT TREASURY, SITAMARHI. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 13/ 05.08.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. From the perusal of the writ application as also Interlocutory Application, it becomes clear that the petitioner who had initially moved this Court for payment of his salary had been subsequently subjected to an order of termination of his service on 27.01.1998 (Annexure-13). From the reading of the aforementioned order, it becomes clear that such termination order was made after complying the principles of natural 2 justice. From the order of termination, it is also evident that the authority who had allegedly appointed the person was not even holding the post on regular basis and infact was continuing only on current charge basis. Such persons working on Current charge basis cannot exercise the statutory power of a regular incumbent as was held by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Girija Shankar Shukla vs S.D.O Harda & Ors, reported in AIR 1973 MP 104, which was also later on affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar vs The Union of India and others, reported in 1991 (2) SCC 733. Thus the appointment of the petitioner must be held to have been made by an incompetent Authority having no power and jurisdiction to make such appointment. That would not be the end of the matter, inasmuch as, from the appointment letter itself it becomes clear that Mr. Bhola Ram, Incharge R.D.D.E had also not followed the prescribed procedure for appointment on the post of teachers in 3 basic school which even at point of time was governed by the statutory Rules requiring not only publication of vacancies by way of advertisement in newspaper but also undergoing selection process through selection committee. None of these procedures were however followed while appointing the petitioner and consequently the appointment of the petitioner made in violation of mandate under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India must be held to be void as was laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, reported in reported in 2006(2)PLJR (SC) 363 and reiterated in the case of State of Bihar Vs Upendra Narayan Singh, reported in 2009(5) SCC 65. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)