Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner had been originally serving on the post of Forest Guard and he received an order dated 1-6-1987 (Annexure-3 which is the same as (Annexure-I of the counter-affidavit) stating that on the basis of his having passed the training course in Van Rakshi Training School, Mahilong, with Honours, he had been promoted to the post of Forester in the prescribed scale of pay. This order of promotion was however withdrawn by an order dated 31-5-1988 (Annexure-6) as a result of which he was again placed on the post of Forest Guard. This order Annexure-6 mentions that the basis on which the order of promotion was issued, namely that he has passed training Course with Honours was incorrect and that in fact he had not passed with Honours and on this account the promotion was being recalled. Annexure-6 is the impugned order and the prayer in this application is to quash the same and place the petitioner again on the post of Forester. 2. The petitioners entire case is based on the claim that he had passed Training Course with Honours and in proof of the same Annexure-1 was given to him. Annexure-1 is a photo copy of the certificate which is said to have been given to him. The Learned State Counsel has on the basis of the facts stated the counter-affidavits and the documents attached with them submitted that the certificate Annexure-1 is not a genuine document and the petitioner had not in fact passed the Training Course with Honours. The various documents filed with the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, to which the petitioner has no satisfactory reply nor has been able to meet the facts stated therein, leave no room for doubt that Annexure-1 is not valid and genuine and does not stated the correct fact and that the petitioner had not in fact passed the Traing Course with Honours and therefore, the very basis for his promotion from Forest Guard to Forester is lacking. 3. It has been pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the rules governing the training Course prescribe that for obtaining Honours (credit) in the final examination of the Training Course a candidate must obtain not less than 75% marks. 3. It has been pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the rules governing the training Course prescribe that for obtaining Honours (credit) in the final examination of the Training Course a candidate must obtain not less than 75% marks. It has been clearly stated in the counter-affidavit, and in fact it is also mentioned in the impugned order Annexure-6, that the petitioner had obtained only 71.75% marks. This is fully supported by Annexure-D which is letter No. 660 dated 12-12-1989 from the Director Bihar Forest Training School, Mahilong, Ranchi. In this letter marks obtained by the petitioner in each paper of the examination making up an aggregate of 71.75% only has been mentioned and the letter further states that only such candidates who obtain 75% or more marks in the final examination are declared to have passed with pratishtha (Honours) in the examination. The petitioner has not shown that there is any inaccuracy in respect of the marks given in Annexure-D. In fact he has not denied that the marks obtained by him are only 71.75% and not more. His contention, however, is that the rules which prescribe that only such persons who secure 75% or more marks will be awarded Honours (Sa Samman) came into force after he had undertaken the examination and passed out and had been given the certificate Annexure-1. This is not correct. The rules relating to the Training of Forest Guards are contained in Appendix VI of the Forest Manual and the same has been filed as Annexure-B to the Counter-Affidavit. Rule 14, which was introduced as for back as in 1939 and corrected by correction slip No. 103 dated 10th January, 1940, Clearly states that for a pass certificate a student must obtain 50% in each major subject and for a pass with credit a student will be required to obtain not less than 75% of the aggregate marks. This rule has been in force ever since. However, the position earlier was that only the candidate who secured the first position with Honours (Sa Samman) in the final examination was entitled, on the basis of such result, to get promotion from the post of Forest Guard to the post of Forester. The position was liberlised and made more favourable by order dated 17th December, 1986 (Annexure-2 which is the same as Annexure-A to the Counter-Affidavit). The position was liberlised and made more favourable by order dated 17th December, 1986 (Annexure-2 which is the same as Annexure-A to the Counter-Affidavit). This order provides that all such Forest Guards who pass the examination with Honours (Sa Samman) and have, completed at least five years of satisfactory service, may be given promotion. It was on the basis of this order that the petitioner was given promotion order Annexure-3, The certificate which is issued to the candidates passing the training Course Examination has a prescribed proforma as will appear from Annexure-1. For those who secure an ordinary pass the words "Samman Ke Sath" are secored through but these words are retained for those who pass with Honours. The photo copy of the certificate produced by the petitioner (Annexure-1) shows that the words" Samman Ke Sath) have not been secored through. The wards were left as it is either mistakenly or the line which scored through these words were subsequently erased. The learned Government Pleader submitted that forgery has been committed by subsequent erasing. During the Course of hearing the petitioner was asked to file the original certificate in Court. The petitioner failed to do so on the plea that he had filed the original certificate in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Siwan and the same has not been returned to him. But Annexure V shows that this plea is not a truthful one. This Annexure is a letter from the D.F.O., Siwan and it clearly mentions that after perusal the original Certificate had been returned to the petitioner and only a photo-copy had been retained in the Siwan Office. In this connection the reply given to the petitioner (which has been attached with Annexure-V) clearly mentions that in 1987 itself the D.F.O, Mithila Forest Extension Division had been intimated by the Siwan D.F.O.s office by letter No. 1734 dated 23-12-1987 that the genuineness of the claim of passing with Honours may be verifies by asking the petitioner to produce the original certificate. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the original was made over to the petitioner. He has chosen not to file the same. The learned State Counsel has urged that had the original been filed it would show that the line scoring through the words "Samman Ke Saath" had been erased. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the original was made over to the petitioner. He has chosen not to file the same. The learned State Counsel has urged that had the original been filed it would show that the line scoring through the words "Samman Ke Saath" had been erased. In support of this argument he points out that entry in the petitioners Service Book Annexure K does not show "Sa Samman". The clear position is that the certificate Annexure-1, on which the petitioner bases his claims, does not show the correct result and is therefore invalid. Prima facte Annexure-1 does not appear to be genuine and it stands discredited by Annexure-K which was made on basis of the original. It is not the petitioners case that he had secured marks higher than 71.75%. Therefore he had not passed "Sa Samman" and hence the service book entry was correctly made. Obviously, therefore, the certificate Annexure-1 is incorrect and in valid in so far as it is shows passing "Samman Ke Sath". But the petitioners contention is that whether right or wrong, since the certificate Annexre-1 shows "Samman Ke Sath" he is entitled to promotion on its basis. Such a contention, on the very face of it, is fallacious. 4. There is no substance in the petitioner contention that the critera of 75% or more marks for "Sa Samman" (Honours) has been fixed after he had passed out. As pointed out above, Rule 14 in Appendix VI of the Forest Manual lays down this critera and this is in existence since 1940. It is not correct to say, as has been urged by the petitioner, that this critera was laid down for the first time by Annexure H which is letter No. 3811 dated 6-7-1987 issued from the office of the Conservator in Chief Forest, Bihar to all officers of the Forest Department. This letter merely re-iterates and remainds that only candidates who have secured 75% or more will be treated as having passed with honours (Sa Samman). It merely re-states what has been laid don since 1940 under Rule 14. Hencs the petitioners condition that the critera of 75% marks is not applicable to him is untenable. This letter merely re-iterates and remainds that only candidates who have secured 75% or more will be treated as having passed with honours (Sa Samman). It merely re-states what has been laid don since 1940 under Rule 14. Hencs the petitioners condition that the critera of 75% marks is not applicable to him is untenable. It was asked that it Rule 14, or say even Annexure H, is not applicable to the petitioner there on the basis of which rule or circular" Sa Samman" could be awarded when he had secured 71.75% marks only, the petitioners had no answer. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner has not passed with honours (Sa Samman) in the Training Course and hence there was no legal and valid basis for his promotion to the post of Forester. 5. The main plank of the petitioners case is that even if the order of promotion as contained in Annexure-3 was mistakenly issued, still he was entitled to a notice and an opportunity of hearing before the order of withdrawal contained in Annexure-6 could be issued and on this ground at least the impugned order (Annexure-6) should be quashed. The main thrust of his argument is that there was denial of natural justice as he was given no npportunity of hearing. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway V/s. L.N. Keshri reported in -- . In my opinion, that case has no bearing on the point at issue. In that case respondents had been given certain scale of pay and had been confirmed in that scale and thereafter the pay was reduced without giving any opportunity to be heard. Under these circumstances, the High Court had set aside the order of reducing the pay and the appeal preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The position is qdite different her inasmuch as the very premise on which the order of promotion was passed is non-existant and lacking. Relience has also been placed by the petitioner on the famaus case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Ors. V/s. The Chief Election Commissioner reported in -- . The position is qdite different her inasmuch as the very premise on which the order of promotion was passed is non-existant and lacking. Relience has also been placed by the petitioner on the famaus case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Ors. V/s. The Chief Election Commissioner reported in -- . On the basis of this case it has been submitted that the validity of the impugned order must be tested on the basis of the grounds mentioned in that order and that new grounds or reasonings must not be brought in support of that order. His contention is that Annexure-3 was issued on the basis that he had passed with honours (Sa Samman) and this order cannot be nullified by introducing the fact that for "Sa Samman" 75% or more marks are required. The critera of 75% or more marks for awarding Sa Samman certificate is existing sinee 1940 and so it cannot be said that a new ground has been introduced to invalidate the order of promotions. The ratio of Mohinder Singh Qills case (supra), has no application. The impugned order contained in Annexure-6 clearly spells out the reason for passing the order. It states that the promotion order of the petitioner was made on the understanding that the petitioner has passed the Training examination with Honours according to the prescribed criteria that at least 75% marks have been obtained by him but on corresponding with the Director of the Training Institute and as per information supplied in the Directors letter No. 70 dated 21-1-19J8 it had been found that in fact the petitioner had not obtained the required percentage of marks for giving a certificate of having passed with honours. This is the basis of the impugned order Annexure-b and the respondent State of Bihar seeks to support the impugned order on the grounds mentioned therein and not by bringing in any fresh or additional grounds. Annexure-6 therefore fully conforms to the legal requirement laid down in Mohinder Singh Gills case. 6. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the question of notice does not arise in a case where the very basis of holding a particularly post is wanting and non-existant and there is no stigma attached to the subsequent order annulling the alleged promotion. Annexure-6 therefore fully conforms to the legal requirement laid down in Mohinder Singh Gills case. 6. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the question of notice does not arise in a case where the very basis of holding a particularly post is wanting and non-existant and there is no stigma attached to the subsequent order annulling the alleged promotion. His submission is that where the order of promotion is founded on a premise which in facts is non-existant and is lacking then such a promotion is illegal and in the eye of law has no operative value and so in such a case the question of giving notice and an opportunity of hearing does not arise. In support of his argument Mr. Kesri has placed reliance on the Full Bench case reported in 1987 BBCJ page 701, Awadhesh Kumar Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar. In that case the appointment of several temporary teachees had been terminated without giving notice to show-cause against the termination. It was found that the foundational facts for their appointment as teachers viz. inclusion of their names in any approved panel and possession of minimum qualifications, were lacking and so there was no appointment in the eye of law and it was void ad initio. The Court reiterated the principle already enunciated in the earlier Full Bench decision in Bijay Kumar Bharati V/s. State of Bihar 1984 BBCJ page 335 (FB) and held clearly and categorically that no notice is required to be given in a case of termination simplicitor and further no notice is required to be given if the termination is on account of the fact that the appointment itself was invalid and in such a case the principle of natural justice does not apply. Here, since the foundational basis for promotion viz. securing not less than 75% marks to be entitled to "Sa Saman" certificate is lacking, the order of promotion. Annexure-3 was invalid and non-est in the eye of law. Where the initial order of appointment or promotion being contrary to the statute or the rules, is illegal and void ab initio, the principle of natural Justice is not attracted because the person has no right to continue on the post. Annexure-3 was invalid and non-est in the eye of law. Where the initial order of appointment or promotion being contrary to the statute or the rules, is illegal and void ab initio, the principle of natural Justice is not attracted because the person has no right to continue on the post. In Anr.r Full Bench decision reported in 1987 BBCJ 741 , Rita Mishra V/s. Director of Primary Education, it has been held that where the initial order itself is illegal and contrary to some statute or rule no right can accrue on the basis of such an order and if the said order is annulled on withdrawn the principle of natural justice does hot come into play and no notice to show cause is required to be given. I think the principle laid down in the aforesaid cases apply with full force to the present case. The petitioners promotion to the post of Forester was on the basis that he had secured not less than 75% marks where by he could be entitled to a "Sa Samman" certificate, but in fact this foundational requirement is absent and non-existant. Obviously, therefore, the order of promotion as contained in Annexure-3 was illegal and invalid at the very inception and non-est in the eye of law. That being so, the question of giving notice to show-cause before passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 does not arose. It has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader, and rightly in my opinion, that in fact this order Annexure-6 is a mere declaration of the fact that the petitioner not having passed the training course with honours was not entitled to get the promotion and the order contained in Annexure-3 is invalid and inoperative. Accordingly, he had to be put on the post where he should have been, namely as Forest Guard and this is what has been done by Annexure-6. In cases where the initial order of appointment of promotion is invalid and non-est in the eye of law, the subsequent order where by the original order is annulled or withdrawn does no harm or prejudice to any one because it merely has the effect of undoing anillegality and bringing to an and a continuing wrong. That being the position, how can it be said that the corrective order violates the principle of natural justice? 7. That being the position, how can it be said that the corrective order violates the principle of natural justice? 7. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that similar mistakes have been committed not only in the case of the petitioner but some other candidates also who were given promotion without verifying the actual marks obtained by them but when the factual position was discovered all Such persons (list given in Annexure-O) have been reverted and sent back on the post of Forest Guard. Hence, by Annexure-6 the petitioner has been given the same treatment as was given to other similarly situated persons listed in Annexure-O. In course of hearing, the petitioner mentioned the names of Binod Prasad Thakur and some others, but the facts stated in the counter affidavits and the documents annexed there to clearly go to show that no person, who has secured less than 75% marks has been allowed to be continued on the promoted post. There is, therefore no question of any discrimination against the petitioner. On the other hand had Annexure-6 not been issued and the petitioner allowed to continue as Forester to which post he is not entitled, while others similarly situated have already been reverted to the post of Forest Guard, it would have amounted to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, Anneure-6 does not give rise to any discrimination but on the contrary mitt an end to discrimination which came into being by issue of the illegal order contained in Anaexure-3. 8. In conclusion I find that the order Annexure-6 is a valid, legal and proper order and it must be upheld. However, even if Annexure 6 had suffered from some technical or legal infirmity, still under the circumstances no interference would be required. It is well settled that when quashing of an order defective on some ground would result in restoring an invalid order and defective on some ground would normally refrain from exercising its perpetuating illegality, the court Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Any interference with or setting aside of the order contained in Annexure-o would inevitably result in continuation of the operation of the illegal and unjust order contained in Annexure-3 and this is wholly uncalled for and unwarranted. 9. Any interference with or setting aside of the order contained in Annexure-o would inevitably result in continuation of the operation of the illegal and unjust order contained in Annexure-3 and this is wholly uncalled for and unwarranted. 9. Before I close, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had filed an earlier writ also i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 4576/88 and at the time of final hearing he liberty to approach the Administrative Tribunal. He did approach the Tribunal and filed Service Application No. 340/88 but was unsuccessful. Thereafter, he has again approached this Court a second time and filed the present writ application. 10. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250.