JUDGMENT :-

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar against the order dated 05.01.2012 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, at Patna in L.P.A. No. 945 of 2010, which has the effect of quashing the order dated 26.09.2003 passed by the of Criminal Investigation Department, Patna, Bihar, terminating the services of the respondent herein.

3. The respondent was temporarily appointed to the post of constable by the Inspector General of Police. Criminal Investigation Department, Patna, Bihar, vide his order dated 14.01.1988 with the stipulation that his service could be terminated without assigning any reason or show-cause. In the year 2000, the High Court of Patna considered the issue of backdoor appointments made in the police department in another case which led to a direction by the Department of Home (Police). Government 'of Bihar dated 04.09.2000 to the Police Headquarter. Bihar to review irregular appointments and to remove such appointees from service.

4. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 10.09.2003 was issued to the respondent -writ petitioner asking him why his appointment should not be cancelled and since no valid reason was shown in his reply, order dated 26.09.2003 was passed terminating the services of the respondent.

5. Challenging the above order, the respondent herein preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Patna which was heard by a learned single Judge. By order dated 09.04.2010 the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations :

"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 systems.

Apart from the illegal entry into services, 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 judgment of the Supreme Court in (2005) 4 SSC 209, Bind Kumar Gupta v. 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."

However, on appeal, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition following an earlier order dated 18.05.2005 in another case, i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 5279 of 2004 filled by one of the similarly placed employee.

6. We have heard Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench erroneously followed the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 5279 of 2004 which was distinguishable as therein no show-cause notice was issued while in the present case, a show-cause notice was duly issued to the respondent. Referring to the order of appointment, it was submitted that the present was a case of backdoor appointment without any advertisement or selection process. It was also pointed out that another Division Bench of the same High Court in Hemkant Jha etc. etc. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., L.P.A. No. 625 of 2003 etc. etc. decided on 18.7.2007 dealt with a group of identical matters, on remand by this Court, and upheld termination of services of police constables appointed without any selection. Therein, it was observed :

"6. On going through the impugned judgments, the relevant facts and the judgment in the case of Sudhir Kumar, it is found that on facts, there is no meaningful and serious challenge to the relevant facts that concerned employees in these matters ha