Letters Patent Appeal No.1658 OF 1999 In the matter of an appeal under clause 10 of the Letter Patent of Patna High Court. ---- ARUN KUMAR, son of Sri Gosain Sah, r/o village Belokhara, P.S. Supaul, Dist.. Supaul. …. Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gopalganj ….. Respondents ---- For the Appellant :Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh & : Mr.Kamlendra Pd. Singh For the State :Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar SC 16 & :Mr.J.K.Roy, ASC to SC II --- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ----- Navin Sinha & K.K.Mandal,JJ Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that his letter of appointment was fake. Upon challenge, the writ Court declined interference holding additionally that no procedures for appointment were followed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the decision of the Director-in-Chief dated 21.09.1998 as communicated by letter of the Civil Surgeon dated 17.10.1998 that the petitioner‟s- appellant appointment was forged suffers from non-application of mind. The order takes into consideration extraneous materials, ignoring - 2 - relevant materials when it considers the case of the petitioner posted at Muzaffarpur. He never worked at Muzaffarpur, but had worked at Gopalganj. A finding has further been arrived that the decision of the Director-in-Chief as communicated by the Civil Surgeon dated 17.10.1998 includes names of five other persons and, therefore, it may be possible that the name of the petitioner-appellant also erroneously got included therein. 4. True it is that this issue has been left inconclusive in the judgment under appeal. But to us, that is not crucial. A finding has been arrived at that the petitioner has been unable despite opportunity to establish genuineness of the appointment letter dated 25.5.1984. Even if the appointment was not fake as urged, the question still remains of a valid appointment in accordance with law. It shall not be proper for this Court to direct reinstatement of the petitioner on the former ground alone when the appointment of the petitioner-appellant itself may not be in accordance with law. To interfere with the impugned judgment on the ground that the fakeness of the appointment letter does not stand conclusively established would result in a wrong order of reinstatement by this Court of a person appointed contrary to law. 5. The impugned order records a categorical finding in the following words:- “There is also nothing to show that in making appointment the established norms of selection were followed.” 6. The writ petition in paragraph 4 stated that he applied in response to an advertisement on the notice-board. In 2008 (1) - 3 - SCC 798 (Nagendra Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), the constables were appointed after a notice board publication. They were terminated terming the appointment illegal. Upholding the order of the High Court declining interference the Supreme Court at paragraph 9 of the judgment held that: “9. In view of the forgoing discussion, we have no option but to hold that if an appointment is made in infraction of the recruitment rules, the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and being nullity would be liable to be cancelled. In the present case, as the vacancies were not advertised in the newspapers, the appointments made were not only in infraction of Rule 663(d) of the Bihar Police Manual but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituion, which rendered the appointments of the appellants as illegal; as such the competent authority was quite justified in terminating their services and the High Court, by the impugned order, was quite justified in upholding the same.” 7. An advertisement published on the notice-board of the office is privy only to those who visit the office regularly or are privately informed as a „favourite‟ by those in office. It cannot be held that such process adequately complied with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandates proper mode by wide circulation making all eligible aware to apply. 8. The impugned order of appointment of the petitioner at Annexure-1 to the writ petition does not refer to any application made by him in pursuance of any advertisement made, inter alia, on the notice- board. In fact, it refers to his appointment being made pursuant to instruction/direction received from the Health Directorate, Patna, dated 25.5.1984, held to be fake. 9. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appeal has no - 4 - merit 10. The last submission based on long continuance before termination, does not appeal to the Court. The law stands well- settled that where the initial appointment itself was invalid and contrary to law, long continuance in service does not vest any claim whether as a matter of right, equity or sympathy. In the case of Nagendra Chandra (Supra) the appellants had worked for fourteen years before termination. 11. The appeal is dismissed. ( Navin Sinha ) ( Kishore K. Mandal ) Patna High Court Dated the 30th November,2009 HR/NAFR