IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16023 of 2004 UMESH PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Adv. For the State: Satish Kumar Sinha, AC to SC-I ***** 06. 04.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of an order, contained in Memo No. 3080/GO, dated 16.07.2003, issued by S.P., Nawada, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from his service after serving as Constable for more than 12-13 years. The reason for terminating the petitioner from his service was that the appointment was not made following procedure, prescribed under the Police Manual for appointment on the post of Constable. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that he was appointed without following the procedure for appointment on the post of Constable. Main thrust of the petitioner’s counsel is that since he continued on the post for 12-13 years, as such his case should be considered, showing compassion and in terms of the equity. Two Counter Affidavits have been filed in 2 this case. One on behalf of the S.P., Nawada, Respondent No. 4 and another on behalf of S.P., Biharsharif, Nalanda, Respondent No. 5. In the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, it has been stated that the termination order was issued against the petitioner in pursuance of an order, contained in Memo No. 294, dated 19.02.2002, in which there was a direction to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner to submit his explanation, giving 15 days time as to why his appointment vide District Order No. 1201 of 1991 be not cancelled. In the Counter Affidavit of Respondent No. 4, it has been stated that the termination order, in case of petitioner as well as other similarly situated Constables, appointed illegally, were issued in the light of an order, issued from the Police Headquarters, contained in Memo No. 6324/P, dated 20.09.2000 and 3128/P-3, dated 08.08.2010. The direction was to terminate all appointees, which have been appointed without following the procedure provided under Police Manual. Since the petitioner was appointed on recommendation of a Local MLA and against the provisions of Police Manual and Rules made 3 thereunder, therefore, he was asked to submit his show-cause as to why his appointment be not cancelled in the light of the direction of the Order, issued by the Police Headquarters and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his show-cause. Considering his show-cause and finding that his appointment was not made in accordance with Rules 661 and 663 of the Police Mannual, an order was issued, terminating him from his service. In this Counter Affidavit, Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14685 of 2001 and C.W.J.C. No. 14698 of 2001 has been annexed. The writ petitioners of these two Writ Applications have also challenged their termination order, which had been issued under the similar background. The Writ Application was dismissed, considering that without following the procedure provided under Rules 661 and 663 of the Police Mannual, appointments were made. Such appointments being illegal. There is no reason to interfere with termination order of such illegal appointments. In para 12 of the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4, it has been stated 4 that orders passed in the Writ Applications were challenged before LPA Bench, but that was also dismissed. Considering the above facts and the circumstances and also that an illegal appointee can not claim for equity, this application is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)