LETTERS PATIENT APPEAL No.1114 OF 2003 (In the matter of an Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent constituting Patna High Court) 1. MAMTA KUMARI, W/o- Sri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, W/o- Sri Sanjay Kumar Sinha. North Hostel, 22, Rohra Bandh, P.S.- Sindri, District-Dhanbad, (Jharkhand) 2. Umesh Pandey, S/o- Late Kapildeo Pandey. R/o- village- Kanauli, P.S.- Shahpur (Patti) District- Bhajpur. ------------------------------------- APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, at Patna 3. Bihar Public Service Commission, through, its Chairman. 4. Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna 800 001. ------------Opp. Parties……………..RESPONDENTS 1st party. 5. Vijay Prasad, S/o-Dr. Chandrashekhar Pd. Club Road, P.S.-Aurangabad Town, District-Aurangabad. 6. Janardan Pd. Mahto, S/o-Jagdish Chandra Mahto, r/o- village-Tand Mahanpur, P.S.-Jaridih, District-Bokaro ----------Opposite parties………RESPONDENT SECOND PARTIES. For the Appellant :- Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. For the Respondent B.P.S.C.:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary. For the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 :- Dr. Sadanand Jha, Sr.Adv. Mr. Chakrapani P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Navin Sinha & Jyoti Saran,JJ. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the facts more than relevant for the purposes of present order. It is not in dispute 2 between the parties that the appellants were working as part time Lecturers in the Government Polytechnic. An advertisement was issued on a requisition made by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.P.S.C.’). The selection process visualized a screening test and an interview. This led to a challenge by the part time Lecturers for regularization, not wishing to face the screening test. A Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6751 of 1991 rejected the challenge. The Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.20904 of 1995 upheld the order of this Court with a limited direction for relaxation in age and weightage for work experience to such part time Lecturers. The requirement to go through the screening test was not interfered. The screening tests were held on 9.11.1997 and other dates. The appellant No.1 did not participate. The appellant No.2 was unsuccessful in the screening test. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, the B.P.S.C. published a corrigendum to the advertisement by which the date for application by part time lecturers was extended. 3 Needless to emphasize that this was not an opportunity to apply afresh for those part time lecturers who had already applied, much less those who had already participated in the selection process which had commenced. The facts reveal some confusion when the appellants applied afresh the corrigendum and came to be appointed after an interview notwithstanding their failure to appear at the screening test and to clear the same respectively. They came to discharge duties. On the folly being discovered they were removed leading to rounds of litigations. The short question for consideration before this Court is that if the appointment was secured or granted contrary to the law without facing screening test or having failed in the same, can the appellant be allowed to retain such benefit on the plea that whatever may have happened the folly lay in the respondent in appointing them. The question of any age relaxation or weightage would arise only after they had been selected. It is not the case of the appellants that under their fresh application they cleared the screening written test. Their appointment 4 was after an interview only which was also in teeth of the order of the Supreme Court. We find it difficult to accept the contention of the appellants that once having been appointed they could not be removed from service for the error on part of the respondents. A benefit obtained contrary to the law to which one is per se not entitled, shall not vest or create a right which never existed originally. In 1994 A.I.R. SCW 4438 (Smt. Ravinder Sharma & Ors. versus the State of Punjab & Ors.). The appointment was terminated being contrary to Regulation 7, requiring Matric Ist division while the applicant was a Matric III division. It was held that the appointment was a nullity. Estoppel had no application and that there had been no concealment or misrepresentation was irrelevant. In that view of the matter whether both the appellants stand in one class inasmuch as they were not candidates who cleared the screening test before appointment. They could not have been called for interview and appointed by a process contrary to procedure. We are satisfied on the own showing of 5 the appellants that they have not been able to make out any case for interference in appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court/ Dated 22nd July, 2010/ Bibhash/N.A.F.R. ( Navin Sinha, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)