IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.760 OF 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No.777 of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No.896 of 2000 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 38 of 2002 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 2002 *** Against the order dated 25.04.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC. NO.2454 OF 1999 and order dated 6.12.2001 passed in CWJC. No. 15285 OF 2001. (L.P.A. NO.760/2000) ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAMCHANDRA SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + POST KACHAHARIA, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA---------------------------------------APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATWA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, FATWA-CUM-INCHARGE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATWA 6. NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATWA THROUGH ITS INCHARGE CIRCLE OFFICER,FATWA------------------------RESPONDENTS (L.P.A. No.777/2000) RAJENDRA KUMAR, SON OF CHANDRIKA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DANYAPUR, P.O. RAITAR, DISTRICT NALANDA, AT RPESENT WORKING AS A WATER SUPPLY ASSISTANT-CUM-TAX COLLECTOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATHAH, DISTRICT PATNA-----------------------------------------APPELLANT Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2.THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 4.SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA 5.CIRCLE OFFICER, FATUHA-CUM-INCHARGE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA 6.NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA THROUGH ITS INCHARGE CIRCLE OFFICER, FATUHA 7.ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF RAM CHANDRA SAH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE + P.O. KACHAHARIA, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA 8 RAI MUKUL PRASAD, SON OF SRI ANAND BIHARI, RESIDENT OF VILALGE + P.O. BHARTHUA, P.S. AURAI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR--------------------PETITIONERS--RESPONDENTS (L.P.A. No.896/2000) ASHOK MOCHI @ ASHOK DAS, SON OF SHRI MISHRI MOCHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATUANA, P.S. FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA-----------------------------RESPONDENT-APPELLANT 2 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATWA, PATNA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, FATWA-CUM-INCHARGE EXECUTIVE OFFIER, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATWA, PATNA 6. NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATWA THROUGH ITS INCHARGE, CIRCLE OFFICER, FATWA, PATNA- RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS IST SET 7. ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAM CHANDRA SAH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE & P.O. KACHAHARIA, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA 8. RAI MUKUL PRASAD, SON OF SHRI ANAND BIHARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. BHARTHUA, P.S. AURAI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ………………………………. WRIT PETITIONERS - RESPONDENTS 2ND SET 9. SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR , SON OF (NOT KNOWN), AT RPESENT WORKING AS WATER SUPPLY ASSISTANT-CUM-TAX COLLECTOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATWA, DISTRICT PATNA 10. SRI BAL MUKUND KUAMR, SON OF (NOT KNOWN) AT RPESENT WORKING AS SAFAI JAMADAR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATWA, DISTRICT PATNA 11. SRI JAI SINGH PASWAN, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SQUARD PEON-CUM-ROUTINE CLERK, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 12. SRI RAGHUBIR PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SQUARD PEON, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 13. SRI RAM PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI INSPECTOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 14. SRI RAJKUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT RPESENT WORKING AS SAFAI INSPECTOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 15. SRI MAHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 16. SRI SANKAR RAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SQUARD PEON, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 17. SRI SHIV NANDAN PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT RPESENT WORKING AS TYPIST, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 18. SRI ISHWAR DEV NARAYAN SINHA, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT RPESENT WORKING AS LEGAL CLERK, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 19. SRI LALA SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT RPESENT WORKING AS TAX COLLECTOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 20. SRI TULSHI RAVIDAS, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SQUARD PEON, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 21. SRI DINESH PRASAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR-CUM-WATER SUPPLY MECHANIC, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 3 22. SRI NAND LAL, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT RPESENT WORKING AS SQUARD PEON, NOTIFIED AREEA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 23. SRI VIJAY PASWAN, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT RPESENT WORKING AS PEON, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 24. SRI LALU RAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 25. SRI SURESH RAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 26. SRI AHSOK DOM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 27. SRI TILKI RAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 28. SRI CHOTE RAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 29. SRI SHIV CHANDRA MOCHI, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 30. SMT. KOSHILYA, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 31. SMT. PANAPATI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 32. SMT. KALO WIFE OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 33. SMT. NAWISHA WIFE OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 34. SMT. SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 35. SRI KAPIL DOM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 36. SRI YADU MOCHI, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 37. SRI JAGDEO RAVIDAS, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 38. SMT. LAL MUNI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 39. SRI RADHE MOHAN, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR-CUM-CARD JAMADAR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 40. SRI RAMANAND MOCHI, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 41. SRI SURESH PASWAN, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 4 42. SRI CHHANU DOM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 43. SRI NARESH DOM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 44. SRI MANI DOM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 45. SMT. LAXMI, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 46. SMT. CHAMPA, WIFE OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 47. SRI MOTI DOM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 48. SRI RAJ KUMAR DOM, SON OF NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS SAFAI MAZDOOR, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA,DISTRICT PATNA---------------RESPONDENTS 3RD SET (L.P.A. No.38/2002) DINESH PRASAD, SON OF LATE BRAHAMDEO GOPE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NOHTA, POLICE STATION FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA------------------------------PETITIONER-APPELLANT Versus 1.THE NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA THROUGH ITS SPECIAL OFFICER 2.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATNACITY-CUM-CHAIRMAN, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA --------------------------------------RESPONDENTS (L.P.A No.49/2002) BAL MUKUND KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAMESHWAR PASWAN, RESIDENT OF NEW AREA JAKKANPUR, POLICE STATION JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT PATNA---------------------PETITIONER-APPELLANT Versus 1.THE NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA, THROUGH ITS SPECIAL OFFICER 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATNACITY-CUM-CHAIRMAN, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 3. THE SPEICIAL OFFICER, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA----------------------RESPONDENTS *** For the Appellants : M/s Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sarita Kumari & Anand Priyadarshi, Advocates (In L.P.A. No.760/2000) Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate (In L.P.A. No.777/2000) Mr. R.K. Sinha II, Advocate (In L.P.A.No.896/2000) Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate (In L.P.A. Nos. 49 & 38 of 2002) 5 For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Addl.A.G. No.III With Mr.Piyush Lall, A.C.to A.A.G.No.III (In all Letters Patent Appeals) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH *** Shiva Kirti Singh & Jayanandan Singh,JJ: Heard the parties in respect of all these five Letters Patent Appeals. 2. The orders of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants are under challenge in these appeals. In all these cases which relate to appointment to Class III or Class IV posts in the Notified Area Committee, Fatwa, District Patna, the question is – whether appointment of the writ petitioners on daily wage basis or on ad hoc basis or on proper pay scale but without following mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the rules of appointment will confer the petitioners with right to hold the posts as permanent employees or not. In some cases there is an additional issue as to what would be the effect of such employees being declared regularized in services soon after their entry in the manner noticed above. 3. The writ court in these cases has dismissed the writ petitions by holding that since the constitutional provisions and rules of recruitment were not followed hence the appointments are void and cannot be 6 regularized. In that view of the matter, the orders terminating services of the writ petitioners were not interfered with. In fact, when the attention of the writ court was drawn to continuance of similarly appointed employees in employment under the Notified Area Committee, in the case of Ashok Kumar (C.W.J.C. No.2454 of 1999), the court made it clear that similar directions should be given in the case of such private respondents also. That led to similar action of termination of services against other petitioners. 4. On behalf of the appellants, strong reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey versus The State of Bihar & ors [2008(1) PLJR 841]. In that case the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis which was extended from time to time and finally, he was regularized. His services were terminated after long period on the ground that the initial appointment was without the due process of selection procedure. The Division Bench allowed the appeal of the writ petitioner in that case on the ground that after permanent absorption he became a permanent civil servant and acquired the protection or right under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India which permits removal of a permanent Government employee only in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Versus Umadevi & ors [ (2006)4 Supreme Court Cases 1] was also considered in that case and it was distinguished on the 7 ground that the claim of the appellant was not for regularization but against termination of a permanent employee hence the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) was not attracted. On the basis of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey (supra) it has been submitted that since appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No.38 of 2002 (Dinesh Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar & ors.) and L.P.A. No.777 of 2000 (Rajendra Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & ors. ) were regularized by specific orders after their initial entry on daily wages basis, they must be treated to have become permanent employees and following the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench decision, they were entitled to all protections of their services as available to a permanent employee. 5. On behalf of the State, the aforesaid submissions were contested and in reply, it was submitted that once the entry of the writ petitioners in services was found to be de hors the rules of appointment and in violation of the constitutional mandates, their services must be treated to be void and such void service cannot clothe the employees with any benefit or protection of regular permanent employee. It was further pointed out that in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey (supra), the post was that of a civil servant to whom Article 311 (2) of the Constitution may be available in certain circumstances but the appellants cannot claim the benefit of that Article of the Constitution as admittedly, they are not civil servants or holders of any civil post under the State. 8 6. Besides offering the aforesaid distinction in the case of appellants and the petitioner in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey, learned Additional Advocate General No.III on behalf of the State made emphatic submission that the aforesaid Division Bench judgment cannot be treated as a good precedent because it is per in curium, without noticing the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Bharti & others Vrs. The State of Bihar & ors (1983 PLJR 667), another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ishwar Dayal Sah Versus The State of Bihar & anr. (1987 PLJR 819) and a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar & others Versus State of Bihar & others [ (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1]. 7. In the case of Bijoy Kumar Bharti (supra), Full Bench of this Court had to consider inter-alia, an important question – as to whether the petitioners in those cases were entitled to be heard before the impugned orders of termination of their services were passed. The plea of natural justice and right of being heard was raised in those cases although the termination was because the appointment was found to be illegal and irregular. The Full Bench considered various judgments and held that if the appointment itself suffers from illegality, the person appointed acquires no right to the post and, therefore, a declaration that his appointment was bad in law does not take away any vested right. It was also discussed and held that in such a case, the aggrieved party can only appeal to mercy and has no cause to be shown. 9 Accordingly, it was held that there is nothing unfair in taking the required decision without hearing the person likely to be affected. 8. In the case of Ishwar Dayal Sah (supra), The Division Bench of this Court was concerned with the plea of natural justice in a case where employment had been obtained against a post reserved for scheduled caste by producing false caste certificate. In view of the nature of allegation and serious civil consequences on appointment being declared void ab initio, the Court held that the requirements of natural justice are attracted in such a case but they are not inflexible and doctrinaire and have to be modulated to each situation. So far as Article 311 and its application in such cases are concerned, the Division Bench held that since the appointment was cancelled being void ab initio, the issue involved the validity of very entry into service or appointment at the threshold and hence, Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted. In order to claim the shelter of Article 311 of the Constitution, a person must first enter into the arena of civil service validly and lawfully. In other words, where the issue is not the validity of entry into the service but some other actions or omissions after entry into the civil service, Article 311 could be attracted but not in cases where the issue is validity of entry into the service itself. 9. In the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) the employees aggrieved by termination of their services on account of allegation of illegal entry de hors the 10 rules of appointment and constitutional mandate raised a plea that many of them had been confirmed or regularized after initial appointment. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, four points for determination were formulated. Point no.(2) was – whether the confirmation of these employees was legally justified. Point no. (3) was – whether principles of natural justice were violated while terminating services of all these 6000 employees appointed by Dr. Mallick. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the second point was answered by holding that if the initial entry itself is unauthorized, question of regularizing the incumbent would never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularization or confirmation is given, it would be an exercise in futility. “It would amount to decorating a still-born baby”. Arithmetical illustrations were added by the Apex Court to point out that nothing could come out of nothing and zero multiplied by zero remains zero. It was further held thus :- “……… Consequently no sustenance can be drawn by the appellants from these confirmation orders issued to them by Dr. Mallick on the basis of the directions issued by the authorities concerned at the relevant time. It would amount to regularization of back-door entries which were vitiated from the very inception….” 10. In paragraph 17 of the judgment it was held that constitution of a committee which was entrusted with the task of looking into the data submitted by the aggrieved employees for deciding the question of legality and validity of their appointments was 11 sufficient to meet the basic principles of natural justice. 11. In view of the aforesaid judgments of Full Bench and Division Bench of this Court and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court noticed above, we are in agreement with the submission of learned Additional Advocate General No.III that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey was per in curium of the aforesaid judgments. If those judgments had been cited by counsel for the parties, the distinction would have been clear between an issue which involves validity of very entry into civil service and other issues which may attract Article 311 (2) of the Constitution when the status of an employee as civil servant is not in dispute. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and particularly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) which has been discussed and approved by recent Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra), we find no merit in these appeals and thus, the same have to be dismissed. 13. However, we have heard learned Additional Advocate General No.III at length in respect of his submission that in the light of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra), service of a person who has entered through an illegal appointment is void and can always be treated as such, with the care and caution that it deserves. There is no dispute that the Constitution Bench, in the case of Umadevi (supra,) has 12 discussed all the relevant precedents, specially judgments of the Supreme Court and has drawn a clear distinction between the appointments which can be treated irregular and, therefore, may be regularized and those appointments which are per se illegal and, therefore, cannot be regularized. For regularizing the services of irregularly appointed employees, who had continued in service beyond ten years without the aid of any order of the court, the Apex Court itself issued directions, as a one time measure, in paragraph 43 of the judgment. 14. The issue as to what will be the effect of the judgment and how it may be used by the State and its authorities, also appears to have been addressed by the Apex Court in the same very paragraph. After issuing directions for one time regularization of specified class of irregularly appointed employees by all the authorities, the Apex Court has issued further clarification which runs thus:- “………… We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 15. In our view, the aforesaid clarification is sufficient indication of the Supreme Court that on the basis of the said judgment, any regularization already made which was not under judicial consideration at any stage, required no reopening on account of that judgment. The Apex Court appears to be fully alive to 13 the situation that in the past there had been by- passing of the constitutional requirements and employees had been regularized or made permanent although they were not duly appointed as per constitutional scheme. The Apex Court, therefore, clarified that there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirements. (Underlining is ours for the purpose of emphasis). Learned Additional Advocate General No.III faintly suggested that since under this judgment the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had prohibited regularization in case of illegal appointments, the reopening of illegal appointments even on the basis of that judgment could be always done by the State even if such matters were not sub judice or had been not reopened prior to this judgment. For this purpose, he submitted that since illegal appointments would be void, they would always remain to be of no consequence. We do not agree with the meaning of the term “void” given by the learned A.A.G. in the present context. The word “void” has been considered by the Apex Court in many judgments under different contexts. There is a catena of judgments to the effect that even illegal or void orders are capable of legal consequences unless the required declaration is sought by the aggrieved party that an order is illegal or void and hence inoperative and not binding. In the case of State of Punjab Vrs. Gurudev Singh, [(1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1], this issue was discussed and determined as indicated above, in the light of several other judgments and reliance was also 14 placed upon a relevant passage from administrative law by Professor Wade. No doubt, in those cases the necessary declaration could come only from a court of competent jurisdiction because the orders were under statutory provisions but the principle is clear that even an illegal and void order continues to have legal consequences till it is lawfully declared to be illegal or void. In this context, the aforesaid “clarification” by the Constitution Bench becomes relevant and useful as a guide otherwise the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) could be used as a basis for reopening of any appointments made at any point of time, may be even in relation to retired employees. The present cases, however, were clearly alive and subjudice from before. The said clarification does not help the appellants. 16. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, all these appeals are found to be without merit and are accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Jayanandan Singh, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 10th February, 2009 A.F.R. (B.T.)