IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.951 of 2009 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 2. the Director, Secondary Education, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. ------- Respondents/Appellants. Versus Shiv Nath Bidyarthi, son of late Ghuryadar, resident of Phulwariya, Police Station – Shikarpur, District – West Champaran (Betia) ------- Petitioner/Respondent. With LPA No.152 of 2010 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Patna, Bihar 3. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. -------- Respondents/Appellants. Versus 1. Vinod Kumar Verma S/O Gauri Shankar Prasad R/O Vill- Panitpur, P.S- Paharpur, Distt- East Champaran (Motihari) ------- Petitioner/Respondent. (In LPA No. 951/2009) For the Appellants : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 24 Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC 24 For the respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. ****** 04. 18.04.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8213 of 2002 by learned Single Judge, wherein the respondent-petitioner have questioned the order of termination issued on 14.06.2002 at Annexure -1 in both C.W.J.C. Nos. 8215/2002 and 8213/2002. The contention before the learned Single Judge has submitted that the names have been recommended by the District Divisional Establishment Committee for the post of Clerk by the Regional 2 Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur and it is not a case where misrepresentation or fraud has been committed. The learned counsel appearing for the State has argued before the learned Single Judge that the appellants have been appointed without any advertisement in any manner and also roaster clearance have not been taken. It is not a case where, on perusal of the judgment, it goes to show that the petitioners in the writ petition have been appointed through the Employment Exchange on being recommended by the Divisional Establishment Committee and their names have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As the respondents have been appointed through employment exchange, their appointments cannot be termed as illegal. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge invites no interference. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Rajeev/Praveen. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)