Madhuresh Prasad, J.—Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:—

“1. That the petitioner above named seeks refuge of this Hon’ble Court and humbly prays for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 1034/Saharsa dated 24/5/2014 issued by the Respondent No.4 the Secretary to the Commissioner Kosi Division, Saharsa, whereby with immediate effect appointment of the petitioner on the post of Typist cum Clerk has been set aside and consequence whereof the order dated 23/1/2015 contained in Memo No. 37 issued from the end of Joint Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar has been issued giving afresh temporary appointment on the post of Peon Group- ‘Gha’ on the Pay Scale without any Show Cause notice and allow the petitioner on the post of Typist cum Clerk Group ‘Ga’ appointed Vide Memo No. 1971/Est. dated 22/8/2012 by Respondent No. 4 on compassionate ground by the alleged Committee.”

3. The petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was considered by the Central Compassionate Committee in its meeting dated 09.12.2010. The same made a recommendation for petitioner’s compassionate appointment on a Group- ‘Ga’ post, subject to availability of vacancies. The petitioner, thereafter, has been appointed on the post of ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’ by the Office of Divisional Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa. The appointment of the petitioner being by an incompetent Authority, the same has been canceled by the same Authority under office order dated 24.05.2014, and the petitioner has been given the due benefits under recommendation of the Central Compassionate Committee dated 09.12.2010 by Office order dated 23.01.2015, issued by the General Administration Department, which admittedly is the competent Authority for the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground in the secretarial services.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Central Compassionate Committee was headed by Principal Secretary of the General Administration Department. The recommendation being by the Principal Secretary there was no occasion for issuance of the Office order dated 24.05.2014, without complying with the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the order, therefore, is unsustainable in the eye of law.

5. The learned counsel for the State, however, has drawn attention of the Court towards the subsequent appointment of the petitioner under Office order dated 23.01.2015 issued by the competent Authority. The same refers to an application made by the petitioner for appointment against a Group ‘Gha’ post. The application of the petitioner precedes issuance of the impugned office order dated 24.05.2014. He, therefore, submits that petitioner is not in a position to question the Office order dated 24.05.2014. Another aspect of the matter is that in between cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment under impugned Office order dated 24.05.2014 and the Office order issued by the competent Authority, appointing the petitioner on 23.01.2015, the petitioner has not raised any objection. Rather he has made an application. After his appointment afresh under office order dated 23.01.2015, the petitioner has not raised any grievance or objection to his new appointment, and three years later he has filed the instant writ petition.

6. In view of the above facts, it is obvious that the petitioner’s appointment as ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’ by the Divisional Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa, was unsustainable as being by an incompetent Authority. The said fact is not in dispute, therefore, submission on behalf of the petitioner that the recommendation was by a competent Authority is hardly of any significance. The recommendation could only have been given effect to by a competent Authority. The fact that the appointment is by an incompetent Authority cannot