An appointment made in violation of a statutory rule is illegal and void. The principles of natural justice are not applicable when the appointment is illegal and void. A person who has not derived any legal right to continue in service is not entitled to any writ of mandamus.

S. B. Sinha, J.

This writ application is directed against the office order contained in Memo. No. 1898 dated 20.8.1992 whereby in terms of a decision held in the meeting dated 22nd June of 1992, the services of the 'petitioner had been terminated.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioner was engaged as a IVth grade employee on daily wages in March, 1983. He, thereafter was appointed on a temporary basis as a peon by the District Education Officer, Patna in terms of Memo No. 865 dated 7.4.1990 and was posted in Fauzdar Singh High School, Athmalgola.

4. The petitioner was later on deputed to the office of the District Education Officer, Patna. He thereafter was transferred to a Nationalised High school situated at Paliganj in the district of Patna. He was again deputed to the office of the District Education Officer, Patna.

5. By reason of the impugned order dated 20th August 1992 the service of the petitioner had been terminated pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting of the officers of the Education Department held on 22nd of June, 1992. The said order is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application.

6. According to the petitioner, he having been appointed on a regular has is, Clause 3 of t he minutes of the meeting as contained in AnIlcxure-3 thereto has no application in his case.

7. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the procedures laid down in the circulars issued by the Personnel and Administrative Department cannot have any application whatsoever and in any event as the petitioner had been working on daily wages since 1983, the petitioner's services have to be regularised.

From a persual of the offer of appointment issued lot he petitioner by reason of Memo No. 864 dated 6.4.1990 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis by the District Education Officer in Fauzdar Singh High School Athmalgola.

8. The petitioner was, therefore, evidently appointed in Nationalised High School by the District Education Officer. It is also evident that prior to the said appointment, neither any advertisement was issued nor the employment exchange was notified. Further as would be noticed here-in-before, even the provisions of statutory rules were not followed.

9. The State of Bihar in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act has framed rules known as Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service conditions) Rules, 1983. The said 1983 rules were amended in the year 1988. The aforementioned 1983 rules inter alia provide for the procedure of appointment of teaching and non-teaching stall in the nationalised schools.

10. The vires of the said 1983 Rules was considered by a Full Bench of this court in Ram Odar Jha vs. the State of Bihar reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 722 and it has been held therein that the said rules are intra-vires.

Mr. Cianesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon an unreported decision of this court in Madan Giri and others vs. Union of India and others in CWJC No.2870 of 1980 Disposed of on 3rd January, 1981 and a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others reported in JT 1992 (5) S.C. 179.

The learned counsel further submitted that in any event in the facts and circumstances of the case the principles of natural justice have to be complied with.

11. The appointment of the petitioner thus being governed by the statutory rules, the provisions thereof could not have been totally ignored by the authorities of the State of Bihar in the mailer of his appointment.

12. In terms of the aforementioned Rules, appointment to a Class IV posts has to be made by a Committee as is evident from Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 thereof. The said rules further provide that while making appointment