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

2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.11.1998 questioning the validity of her appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant by the Regional Director of the Animal Husbandry Department, Magadh Range at Gaya on 14.12.1989. The petitioner replied to the same stating that the issues of competence to make appointment can only be answered by the Regional Director himself as no officer can make appointments without authority. She further stated that her appointment came to be made in pursuance of a notice placed on the notice board after interview alongwith others and. came to be regularized only after the recommendation of a selection committee. Learned counsel places strong reliance on Annexures-12 and 13 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 17.3.2010 that certain others appointed alongwith her are being retained in service and whose letters of appointment were couched in similar language. He further relies upon a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1998/2000 with regard to appointments made by the Regional Director of the Animal Husbandry Department, Magadh Range at Gaya on Class-3 posts to which the petitioner belongs, prior to the cut-off date of 21.2.1992.

3. Learned counsel for the State contends that the appointment of the petitioner was without any procedures. Moreover, the post of a Laboratory Assistant was a State cadre post on which the Regional Director was not competent to make appointments and no authority for the same had been given to him. This has been stated in a supplementary counter affidavit served on the petitioner on 30.9.2005. The Director, Animal Husbandry was the authority alone competent to make such appointments of the State Cadre Posts and that too after obtaining recommendation of the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board or the Bihar Public Service Commission, as the case may be. The power to make appointments on Class-3 posts given to the Regional Director was only with regard to ministerial post that of Milk Recorder/and Store-keeper, but not that of a Laboratory Assistant.

4. Though two affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioner thereafter, there is no denial of this statement of fact.

5. Annexure-1 to the writ petition on which the petitioner contends that power was given to the Regional Director to make appointments states that it had become necessary to give certain powers of the Director to the Regional Director in order to expedite works at the regional level. The nature of the powers is then inter alia specified with regard to casual leave, passing of bills etc. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the power of the Director was given to the Regionar Director it cannot be said that outright the appointment was illegal.

6. The writ petition or the several affidavits do not state that the petitioner was even registered wijh the employment exchange. In her reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner in no uncertain terms acknowledges that there was no advertisement when she states that she applied in pursuance of a notice published in the notice board. Such a manner of appointment has been held to be illegal in (2008)1 SCC 798 (Nagendra Chandra & Others V/s. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) when even long continuance of 14 years to condone the illegality was rejected and the claim dismissed. There is no statement in the writ petition that the petitioner came to be appointed by a process of selection. On the contrary, her letter of appointment dated 14.12.1989 first appoints her and states that she shall be required to appear before a selection committee later in accordance with rules. That is clearly putting the cart before the horse. tion is concerned since 10.12.1990, it simply talks of an individual regularization of the petitioner and does not make any reference to any selection committee constituted and which found her e