IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4181 of 1998 1.GEETA KUMARI, D/O SRI JAGANNATH RAM, R/O VILLAGE RATANDATE, POST OFFICE POKHARIA RAI, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 2.RASANA KHATOON, D/O BASIR AHMED, R/O VILLAGE DHUMNAGAR, POST OFFICE NARKATIAGANJ, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 3.SURIBHI SANYAL, D/O RABINDRA NATH SANYAL, R/O HOSPITAL ROAD, POST OFFICE BETTIAH, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.TEH INSPECTORESS OF SCHOOL, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DISTRICT INSPECTORESS OF SCHOOLS, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 5.THE HEAD MISTRESS, STATE GIRL’S MIDDLE SCHOOL, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN. ……………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 22.07.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the impugned order dated 29.08.1997 while affirming the order of termination of service of the petitioners dated 30.5.92 has elaborately dealt with the inherent infirmities in the appointment of the petitioners dated 28.2.1992 this Court in view of the clear breach of the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India must hold that the very appointment of the petitioner was in violation of not only in teeth of the statutory rules but 2 also against all sort of fair play in the matter of direct appointment. Here is a case where a person not authorized by law had advertised the post not in newspaper but on the notice board. The alleged advertisement notified on the notice board is no advertisement in the eye of law for making direct recruitment on any public post. Moreover the fact that officer authorised to make such appointment was transferred and was replaced by an Incharge Officer who was deputed only to look after the work of the Office till posting of regular incumbent would also make the appointment of petitioner by such incharge officer bad in law inasmuch as such Incharge could not have exercised the statutory power vested in a particular officer. Moreover the power of appointment having been delegated to the District Inspector of the Schools only for Class-IV post, the District Inspector of School had also no power to make appointment of the petitioner on class-III post of a teacher. That apart when out of 13 candidates 3 allegedly interviewed, two of them securing 78.6 and 68.2 per cent marks were ignored for appointing the petitioners securing 66.50% marks or below this Court must hold that there was a clear fraud played in the name of selection process and consequently their such appointment in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India continued merely a period of three months had vested them with no right. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that whatever be the illegality in the selection and appointment of the petitioners they cannot be blamed for the same. In view of the fact, the matter relates to the year 1992, this Court is not aware as to whether those persons who had made such illegal appointment of the petitioners are still in service. Nonetheless the respondents are directed to take disciplinary action against the Officers who had made such illegal appointment. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is 4 dismissed but the rejection of the case of the petitioner will not mean that they would be precluded in any future appointment. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)