D.N. Patel, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original petitioner nos.1 and 3 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of rejection dated 28th August, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5460 of 2003, which was preferred for regularization of the services of these appellants. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that if public employment is given to any person without any advertisement, without any interview, without there being any invitation of applications from the public at large and if the appointment is made as a back-door entry, the regularization of such type of illegally appointed person is not permissible in the eyes of law. Being aggrieved by the judgment given by the learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners.

2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that these two appellants are working as Class-IV employees since 01.11.1981 as a Roller Khalasi, on casual basis. Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that a circular has been issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal, on the basis of which, even Hon'ble Patna High Court has decided few writ petitions and a direction was given for regularization. Such orders are in rem and in personam. Such order is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and in pursuance of such type of orders, even recommendation was made by the Superintending Engineer to the Engineer-in-Chief for regularization, which is at Annexure-4 to this memo of appeal and, ultimately, few employees were regularized and their regularization orders are at Annexures 5, 6 and 7 and the case of these appellants is exactly like those employees. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellants that few employees who are below in the rank to these appellants have also been regularized and thus, there is a discrimination so far these appellants are concerned. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decisions reported in 2007(4) JCR 301 [Manglu Prasad Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors], (2015) 8 SCC 265 [Amarkant Rai Vs State of Bihar] and (2010) 9 SCC 247 [State of Karnataka Vs M.L. Kesari] as well as the decision reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 [State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Uma Debi(3) & Ors]. On the basis of aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that these appellants ought to have been regularized into the services, as, they have worked for 240 days prior to 01.08.1995. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5460 of 2003 dated 28th August, 2009 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the appointment of these appellants (original petitioners) was absolutely illegal. These appointments were made as a back-door entry. There was no public advertisement for Class-IV post. No opportunity was given to the public at large to compete for Class-IV posts. Selected few were fortunate enough to get the back-door entry and to get the employment and no premium can be paid to these types of back-door entrants. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of State of Bihar v. Chandreshwar Pathak [(2014) 13 SCC 232], Mohd. Ashif Vs. State of Bihar [(2010) 5 SCC 475] and Renu Vs. District & Sessions Judge [(2014) 14 SCC 50].

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in not issuing the writ of mandamus for the regularization and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained.

REASONS

5. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circum