Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. .

2. By the order impugned before the writ court contained in Annexure-27, the service of the appellant/writ-petitioner has been terminated after recording a finding that her very entry on the post of Assistant Teacher due to leave vacancy in Government Girls' High School, Purnea was illegal because there was no advertisement or interview nor the roster system was followed. The learned Single Judge has considered the matter in detail and on deep analysis of the facts has found and held that entry of the appellant in service was illegal and hence she cannot be permitted to continue in service in view of settled law to that effect.

3. The impugned order passed by the Inspectress of Schools-cum-Deputy Director of Education, Bihar, Patna dated 17th December, 2002 is a speaking order and the basic facts mentioned in that order have been found to be correct by the writ court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two major issues. Firstly, according to him large number of similarly appointed assistant teachers are continuing in service in the State of Bihar. He has impleaded some of them as respondents. On that ground he wants this Court to permit the appellant to continue in service. We are of the considered opinion that Article 14 of the Constitution of India can be claimed only for positive action and not in negative manner. Once the authorities and the writ court have found that the appellant was given a back-door entry in service without following the rules of recruitment in any manner, only because some others may be continuing on account of illegal appointment, cannot give any benefit to the appellant.

5" The second issue raised on behalf of appellant is that by an order dated 6th September 1990, contained in Annexure-6, appellant was promoted to higher post and scale by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar and, therefore, the impugned order declaring the entry of the appellant in service as illegal could not have been passed by the Inspectress of Schools-cum-Deputy Director of Education, Bihar. On its face, the argument appears to be attractive but it has no substance be"" cause it has been held in large number of cases that where illegality in entry into service is matter of enquiry, only the principle of natural justice has to be adhered to and the person who is found to have been taken into service illegally cannot claim shelter of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the service rules requiring disciplinary proceeding for removal. In the present case, several opportunities of show cause were given to the appellant, both by the Director and by the Inspectress of Schools and ultimately the authority who passed the impugned order gave two show cause notices. In the first show cause notice dated 9th August, 2002 (Annexure-22) it is mentioned by the Inspectress of Schools that action was being taken by her pursuant to the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar contained in letter dated 21st March, 2002. Clearly such direction was given by the Director because he found that the appellant had been allowed entry into service illegally and against the norms of appointment and constitutional mandates by the District Inspectress of Schools, Purnea. The enquiry, therefore, was entrusted to the Inspectress of Schools, Bihar, a superior authority. In this background the writ court has noted at Page-7 of the judgments that the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the power of Respondent No. 4 to issue the impugned order of termination, as contained in Annexure-27.

6. On merits, learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that in a recent judgment in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, AIR 2010 SC 2587, a different view has been taken and the judgments• of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, [ : 2006(2) PLJR (SC)363] has been interprete