1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing order dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure-1), by which respondent no. 3 the District Education Officer, Buxar, after considering the report and also the show cause filed by the petitioner, terminated the petitioners service as a Peon in Brahmeshwar Nath High School, Brahmpur, in the district of Buxar.

3. The petitioners claim is that he was appointed for a period of only three months on the post of Peon on 1.5.1989, whereafter by order dated 22.7.1989 (Annexure-5) he was duly appointed temporarily on that post by the authority, who had the jurisdiction to appoint, on a vacant sanctioned post of Peon.

4. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that although the petitioner was appointed by the authority, who was duly authorised for appointment, but for the said appointment neither any advertisement was made nor any interview was taken nor a panel was prepared and hence it was in complete violation of the procedure as laid down by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department vide its circular no. 16441 dated 3.12.1980.

5. Such matters have attracted the attention of this Court as well as of the Hon ble Apex Court for quite sometime and the Hon ble Apex Court in case of R.N. Nanjundappa V/s. T. Thimmiah, 1972 1 SCC 409 specifically held in paragraph 26 of the judgment as follows:

"Counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that regularisation would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularisation did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularisation of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules."

6. Subsequently the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 [:2006(2) PLJR (SC)363] has held in paragraph 53 of the said judgment as follows:

"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or Tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten yeas or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassin