Order Mr. I.K. Sharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raised a number of contentions to show that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application is illegal. Learned counsel submitted that an enquiry with regard to the alleged illegality of the appointment should have been made in respect of each and every candidate and a general enquiry would not sub-serve the purpose. We do not agree with the contention inasmuch as by reason of the impugned order the appointments of all such persons, who were illegally appointed by the Civil Surgeon, Giridih, have been cancelled. 2. Mr. Sharan next submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner served for two years, he has acquired a right as his services could not have been terminated without taking recourse to section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that in any view the petitioner's services should not have been terminated in view of the fact that he has put in about two years of service. 4. When questioned, the learned counsel admitted that the petitioner was appointed, without any advertisement having been issued in this regard. 5. A citizen of India has fundamental right to be considered for appointment and the appointments by the State must conform to the provisions of the recruitment rules and also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Any appointment, which is made in violation of it is a nullity. No employee derives any right to continue in the employment if the same was obtained by taking recourse to back door method i.e. in contravention of mandatory provisions of the recruitment rules and also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by this Court in a Dumber of decisions including in the case of Kamal Kumar Sinha v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna and others [1990 (2) PLJR, 465]. In that case this Court considered two Supreme Court decisions in the cases of The State of Gujarat and another v. Zinabhai Ranchhodji Darji and others (1972 Vol. II S.C.R. 799) and B.N. Nagrajan v. The State of Karnataka (AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 1676), wherein the Supreme Court clearly held that an act of 'regularisation' cannot create a third source of appointment. II S.C.R. 799) and B.N. Nagrajan v. The State of Karnataka (AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 1676), wherein the Supreme Court clearly held that an act of 'regularisation' cannot create a third source of appointment. In the aforementioned decision the Supreme Court has held that any appointment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution will be wholly illegal and a nullity. 6. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, as the petitioner admittedly was appointed without any advertisement having been issued in this regard and, thus, the same being in violation of the recruitment rules of the State of Bihar as also Article 16 of the Constitution of India, he, in our opinion, has not derived any legal right to maintain this application. In this case the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, which cannot be granted in absence of legal right of the petitioner to hold the said post. 7. If there is any violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, in our opinion, the remedy of the petitioner lies in raising an Industrial Dispute. 8. However, we hope and trust, the amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner towards Provident Fund and Group Insurance shall be refunded to him. 9. This application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations.