Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application. Since pleadings are complete, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally.

2. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed on officiating basis by District Development Officer, Maharajganj on 11.12.1991 and was regularised by order dated 13.1.1992 but by means of the impugned order dated 16.1.1992 passed by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj it was directed that all Class-III and Class-IV appointments made in the last six months in the office of District Development Officer shall stand cancelled. It is contended that the impugned order is in utter violation of principle of natural justice and hence is liable to be set aside. It is also stated that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the recommendation made by Selection Committee and having been regularised on Class-IV post ought not to have been terminated abruptly by such an order and hence the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on a Single Judge judgement of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Singh and others v. District Magistrate, Maharajganj and others, 2009(5) ADJ 563.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the recruitment to Class-IV post in the State is governed by the Group “D” Employees Service Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “1985 Rules”) as amended in 1986. A detail procedure for recruitment is provided in the said Rules but without following the said procedure, in a wholly fraudulent manner, the District Development Officer initiated the proceedings and made such appointments. Actually it so happened that the District Development Officer get an advertisement published in daily newspaper “Dainik Jagran” dated 05.12.1991 for clerical post, i.e., Junior Clerk and Junior Accounts Clerk. Last date for submitting applications provided therein was 7.12.1991 and date of interview was shown as 23rd and 24th December, 1991. The District Magistrate, however, observing that a very short time was given for submitting applications, deferred the interview and allowed receipt of the applications till 30.12.1991 after giving a fresh advertisement in the newspaper by his order dated 19.12.1991. However, subsequently by order dated 21.12.1991 the District Magistrate cancelled the entire selection proposed in clerical posts. It appears that thereafter a suit was filed being Suit No. 21 of 1992 in the Court of Munsif wherein an injunction was granted restraining the respondents from proceeding with the selection and not to make any further selection on the post in question. The District Magistrate accordingly passed an order dated 13.1.1992 restraining the District Development Officer from making any appointment.

4. However, in the case in hand, the District Development Officer without making any advertisement or requisition to the employment exchange, made certain officiating appointments and also on his own passed order for regular appointment without there being any regular selection made in accordance with 1985 Rules. A complaint to this effect was received by the District Magistrate. He passed the impugned order particularly considering one more fact that State Government by order dated 17.7.1991 has imposed ban for making any appointment. It is further stated that the petitioner never appeared before any selection committee either on 1.10.1991 or 13.9.1991. Besides, there was no post of Messenger sanctioned nor any advertisement was ever issued and the entire appointment was wholly illegal and fraudulent. It is said that the District Development Officer proceeded wholly illegally and departmental action has been initiated against him.

5. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated what has been said in the writ petition stating that the Selection Committee made recommen