An appointment influenced by extraneous considerations is non est, creating no legal right in favor of the appointee.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

( 2 ) THE instant case is a glaring example of arbitrariness in a State action. The 1st respondent reached his superannuation by completing the age statutorily determined therefor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh dairy Development Corporation Limited, admittedly a State Government undertaking. After he was reared as per superannuation regulations, the Corporation received a communication from the Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and fisheries Department who wrote a D. O. letter to Sri Dayachari, Managing Director of the Corporation on 31-7-1995 to the folio wing effect:"you may re-employ Sri V. Nageswara rao, General Manager, AP Dairy development Co-operative Federation limited, Rajahmundry as General manager of the AP Dairy Development co-operative Federation Ltd at rajahmundry for a period of one year after retirement on 31-7-1995 on. superannuation and intimate the action taken to the Government immediately.

( 3 ) SRI Dayachari obliged the Principal secretary to the Government by giving re-employment to the 1st respondent, Sri v. Nageswara Rao, and telegraphically informed him on 31-7-1995 as follows:"telephonic discussions held with Sri i. Papa Rao Manaer Grade-I by the general Manager (Panda)on31-7-1995 around 3. 45 PM confirmed (.) Sri v. Nageshwara Rao re-employed as general Manager Godavari Union w. e. f. 1-8-1985 as per Government instructions (.) Orders follows (.)"

( 4 ) COURTS have good reasons to frown upon interference by the executive in the matters which are taken care of by the statutes. A person who is vested with the power to act in his discretion, when acts on influence or considerations of someone who does not have any role to play, even if acts innocently, commits a serious illegality and he cannot be heard to say that he has acted honestly.

( 5 ) THE 1st respondent, however, has contended that since he has been given re- appointment and the said re-appointment has been given to him not at his behest but he has been called to continue for a period of one yearmore, any termination, until he completed the said period of one year of re-employment, will attract the principles of natural justice.

( 6 ) ONE of the settled principles of law is that a person who is a beneficiary of any illegality will be assumed to be a party to that illegality. His innocence cannot be presumed as learned counsel for the 1 st respondent has tried to canvass before us. Once his innocence is not presumed, he has to justify that the re-appointment given to him has been given in exercise of a valid and legal authority by a person who is empowered to decide as to who should be appointed or given re-appointment. There is nothing on the record to show that Managing Director is the appointing authority or that he is vested with the power to reappoint any other person in a post in a co-operative federation limited. That apart, assuming that he has power to do so, he has not acted in his discretion. He has yielded to the influence of the Principal secretary to the Government and thus has acted upon extraneous considerations. His order, thus, is clearly hit by malice in law. Something which is attributable to malice in law is non est. Sc, in the instant case, is the order giving reappointment to the 1st respondent. Since the appointment given to the 1 st respondent is non est, no legal right is created in his favour. Since no legal right is created in favour of the 1st respondent by the order of re-appointment, there is no question of any legal injury suffered by him. Since no legal injury is suffered by him, there is no question of any hearing afforded to him before the illegal appointments cancelled by the Court or any competent authority. We are of the opinion, in the instant case, that serious illegality will continue unless the order impugned in the writ appeal i