IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments, emphasizing the requirements of sanctioned posts, advertisement, and proper recruitment methods.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The appellant challenges the order in CWJC No. 18912 of 2011 which was disposed of by a common judgment in a batch of writ petitions. Learned counsel for the appellant before us submits that one of the writ petitions disposed of; CWJC No. 20511 of 2011 was also appealed against. Therein a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1644 of 2014 by a judgment dated 6.12.2021 considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Devendra Sharma, (2020) 15 SCC 466 and directed consideration of whether the writ petitioner’s appointment is illegal or irregular.

2. We have gone through Devendra Sharma (supra) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue in the background of the binding precedent in State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. There was a distinction drawn in so far as invalid/wrong/illegal/irregular selections. In so far as illegal selections are concerned, it was held that there was nothing further to be done specifically following the ratio of the judgment in Umadevi (supra); when such appointments were made without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and without any method of recruitment. Such appointments were found to be backdoor entries, a clear act of nepotism and favouritism which could not have been sustained on any judicial standard. It was also held that such illegal appointment is a result of only arbitrary process.

3. We have to decide whether the present case warrants a consideration where the appellant’s appointment is illegal or irregular. We first notice the facts of CWJC No. 20511 of 2011 which was noticed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 29 which reads as follows:

“29. The petitioner of CWJC No. 20511 of 2011 has claimed that he was appointed as Male Family Welfare Worker on 02.11.1989. The petitioner's appointment letter has been found to be forged. The plea of the respondents in their counter affidavit is that the petitioner worked on a forged appointment letter. Nothing has been stated in the writ application about the manner in which the petitioner was selected for appointment by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sahebganj. Even as per the petitioner's averment, no notice was issued and no selection process was followed for making appointment added with the fact that the enquiry committee has come to a finding that the petitioner's appointment letter itself was forged.”

4. We also notice the facts of the petitioner’s case as considered by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 26 to 28 which are extracted hereunder:

“26. The petitioner of CWJC No. 18912 of 2011 has claimed that he submitted his application in response to a notice published on the notice board of the office of Regional Deputy Director (H), Magadh Division, Gaya. Pursuant thereto, by a Letter No. 54 dated 12.05.1989, he was asked to appear for interview on 27.05.1989. The so-called interview letter has been annexed as annexure-1 the writ application. The letter does not mention even the post against which the petitioner had applied and the post for which he was invited to appear for examination/interview. It is his claim that he was appointed by letter dated 27.07.1989 issued by Regional Deputy Director (H), Magadh Division, Gaya. Upon enquiry, it was found that the letter No. 41C dated 27.07.1989, which the petitioner claimed to have issued to him appointing him against class-III post, was in fact issued to one Arun Kumar, Lipik.

27. In the counter affidavit the respondents has taken a plea that the Regional Deputy Director (H), Magadh Division, Gaya did not have any authority to appoint a person against class-III post. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's name does not figure in the acquittance roll. Letter No. 54 dated 12.05.1989 which, according to the petitioner, was written to