1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent the appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 26.4.2007 in CWJC No. 13517 of 2000, whereby, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be dismissed with special cost of Rs. 2000/after being held that the writ petition is utterly frivolous and meritless.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We have also taken into consideration the pleadings, documentary evidence, as well as, text and tenor of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the relevant propositions of law including the latest constitutional Bench decision rendered in Secretary of the State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006)4 SCC 1[: 2006(2) PLJR (SC)363], arising out of the Service Jurisprudence.

3. It is manifest and evident from the record that the appointment of the appellant-original writ petitioner on the post of Class III in the Department of Education is not legal and valid inasmuch as neither he has been appointed by the competent authority nor in the manner prescribed. It appears that the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed by an authority who is not authorized by the Government to make appointment on a Class III post. There are different competent authorities to make appointment on different posts and in this matter the person who appointed the appellant was not competent and had also not been delegated power to appoint him in Class III post. Moreover, the vacancy was not notified in the newspapers and even the requirement of calling the names from the Employment Exchange was not adhered to. Thus, the appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner in the Government service was clearly in violation of two major requirements for valid and legal appointment and thus in breach of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is also found from the record that the appellant had not worked. He kept quiet for 5 years for the reason not known to us and after 5 years he woke up and knocked the door of justice with the help of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is, undoubtedly, discretionary, prerogative, extraordinary in nature. There is apparently no any legal injury to the legal right of the appellant-writ petitioner which can be remedied in the constitutional writ jurisdiction.

5. Therefore, we have examined the entire record in deep and upon probing it is found that the Institute, where the appellant claims to have worked for 5 years, has given its report that he had never worked. It is in these set of circumstances, the relief of payment of salary has been rightly declined by the learned Single Judge.

6. However, while dismissing this Letters Patent Appeal after hearing both the parties at the threshold, we do not deem it necessary at this stage to impose the exemplary cost of Rs. 2000/- upon the appellant and, accordingly, we modify the impugned order to that extent and, accordingly, the cost of Rs. 2000/- will stand quashed.

7. With this observation, this appeal shall stand dismissed. Rule is discharged.