IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8462 of 1996 BRAJ KISHORE SINGH, Son of Bachhu Narain Singh, resident of village- Balwa, P.O.- Belhari, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya, at present posted as Statistician (Gannak) In the District Animal Husbandary Office, Jehanabad -------------Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Animal Husbandary, Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Animal Husbandary Magadh Range/Area, Gaya. --------------Respondents. ----------- 5. 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The order of termination passed against the petitioner vide Annexure-8, dated 2.4.1996 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the reason given by the respondents for removing the petitioner from service is misplaced because the Regional Director Animal Husbandry did have the requisite authority to make appointment on class III and class IV posts. The power was taken away and vested in the Director much later and to that extent the order requires interference. Learned counsel for the State brings to my notice a decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. reported in 2009 (5) SCC 65. similar issue was taken to the 2 Hon’ble Supreme Court out of the same transaction where not only this petitioner but large number of other persons had come to be appointed and subsequently terminated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where appointments on Class III and Class IV posts have been made in gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Section 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 as well as the various circulars issued by the State Government, the order of termination had to be upheld. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively dealt with the matter and upheld the appeal of the State of Bihar meaning thereby that the order of terminations were also upheld. The reasoning given by the Supreme Court applies to the petitioner and there is no case for interference with the order. The writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)