Letters Patent Appeal No.1149 OF 2000 ******* Against the order dated 11.10.1999 passed In CWJC no. 6037 of 1998. ******* THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS--------Appellant Versus SANJAY KUMAR-------------------Respondent ******* For the Appellant : M/s Anil Kumar, GP XI, Narendra Kumar, JC. For the Respondent: None. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. In CWJC no. 6037 of 1998 the writ petitioner contended that upon coming to know from a notice given in the office of the Regional Director, the petitioner made an application in the year 1991 and thereupon he underwent selection process and, ultimately, on recommendation of a Selection Committee, he was appointed in the post of 2 Milk Recorder, a Class-III post. The reason for the petitioner in approaching this Court in CWJC no. 6037 of 1998 was an order dated 15th July, 1997, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the Regional Director had no competence to appoint against the post in question. By the judgment and order rendered in CWJC no. 6037 of 1998 against which LPA no. 1149 of 2000 has been preferred, a learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. The learned Judge found, as a fact, that the Regional Director was delegated the power of the Director to appoint Class-III employees which power was taken back from the Regional Director on 28th October, 1991. In as much as the petitioner in the said writ petition was appointed by the Regional Director before 28th October, 1991, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 15th July, 3 1997, by which the appointment of the petitioner in the said writ petition was terminated, was quashed. 3. In the present appeal, on 04th March, 2002, this Court noticed that pursuant to the judgment and order under appeal the petitioner in CWJC no. 6037 of 1998 has rejoined his post a year back and considering the said fact the Court refused to stay the operation of the judgment and order under appeal. However, it was indicated that if the petitioner in the said writ petition has not been paid arrears the payment thereof shall be stayed. 4. In the appeal it is the contention of the appellant that while it is true that power of appointment vested in the Director was delegated to Regional Directors and the 4 same was withdrawn subsequent to the date of appointment of the petitioner in CWJC no. 6037 of 1998, but still then the Regional Director was incompetent to appoint the petitioner in the said writ petition in as much as in terms of the decision of the Government taken as far back as in 1985, those people could only be appointed in Class-III posts who had been recommended by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board and in the case the petitioner in CWJC no. 6037 of 1998 there is admittedly no recommendation by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board. 5. According to us, competence to appoint is not competence to sign appointment letters. The appointing authority, apart from being competent to sign appointment letters, should also be 5 competent to appoint the person, whose appointment letter he has signed. When the appointing authority is entitled to sign appointment letters of only those, who have been recommended by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board, the appointing authority was incompetent to sign appointment letters of those, who had not been recommended by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board. 6. Although the appellant has specifically stated that appointment in Class-III posts, as that of the posts of Milk Recorders, required recommendation of the Bihar State Subordinate service Selection Board, the writ petitioner- respondent, who was entered appearance in the appeal, has not uttered a word in relation thereto. The counsel engaged by 6 the petitioner-respondent is also not present. 7. In the circumstances, the conclusion would be that though on 14th May, 1991, when the petitioner in CWJC no. 6037 of 1998 was appointed, the Regional Director was competent to sign an appointment letter for the purpose of appointing a Milk Recorder, which is a Class-III post, but he could not appoint a person as Milk Recorder without the recommendation of the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board and, accordingly, appointment by the Regional Director of the petitioner in CWJC no. 6037 of 1998 by the appointment letter dated 14th May, 1991 in the absence of such recommendation was incompetent. There being no such recommendation in favour of the petitioner, we set aside the judgment and order rendered in CWJC no. 6037 of 1998 as 7 assailed in LPA no. 1149 of 2000 and at the same time dismiss the writ petition. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, The 29th August, 2008. AAhmad/ (NAFR).