IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.204 of 2004 CHANDRESHWAR PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 09/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2003 by which his services as a constable in the Government Railway Police has been terminated. The petitioner came to be appointed by an order No.107/08 vide Annexure-1 which states that being an outsider he was being appointed on the written directions of the Additional Director of C.I.D. recorded in file No.6/36. He next claims from Annexure-2 that it came to be approved by a selection committee. The proceedings of the selection committee reflect that he was only person considered. A show cause notice was issued to him on 10.9.2003 that his appointment was contrary to law, without advertisement and open competitive selection. He replied that the procedures were the concern of the authorities and that he was appointed after advertisement and selection process without any whisper of a suggestion with regard to the details and dates of the same. The impugned order has then followed. 2 This Court is not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the order of termination from what appears to be an illegal appointment based on the spoils system. Apart from the illegal entry into service, the alleged regularisation is of no avail to him as it is apparently a single case considered without others to dole out an individual benefit. The submission that he had served for 16 long years and therefore his case should be considered sympathetically does not appeal to this Court. The petitioner must perish by the same sword by which he came. Reliance of the petitioner on an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5279/04 interfering with a similar order of termination on the ground that it had been passed after 15 years is best answered by the judgement of Supreme Court in (2005) 4 SCC 209 (Binod Kumar Gupta vs. Ram Ashray mahato & Ors.) where the Supreme Court declined to interfere with an order of termination passed after 15 years of service, in case of an illegal appointment. The application is dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)