Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. We have heard Counsel, for the parties at length, and after hearing them we are disposing of this writ petition at the admission stage itself. The respondents have not filed counter affidavit and, therefore, we shall proceed on the basis of the facts as stated in the writ petition, and as apparent from Annexures annexed therewith. 2. This is yet another case where appointments made on 14th May, 1987 and thereafter have been cancelled by order dated 18th June, 1939 (Annexure-4). The petitioner has, therefore challenged the validity and legality of Annexure-4 we have come across large number of such cases where the Government finding no alternative has cancelled appointments made by the appointing authority, obviously because the appointments were illegal and unauthorised. It is indeed unfortunate that in the last 10 or 15 years, rarely have appointments been made in accordance with rules, if any, or in accordance with the Circulars, Notifications etc. issued by the State of Bihar laying down the procedure for making appointments. In different Department, instructions, Circulars etc. have been issued from time to time wherein, the absence of rules, fair procedure, for making appointment has been laid down. In most of those instructions notifications etc. the Government has directed the appointing authority to advertise the post and/or to call for names from the Employment Exchange. A Selection Committee or establishment committee has been constituted to consider the relative merit of the applicants, and of those persons whose names are sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Such a procedure obviously is calculated to give an equal opportunity to all intending candidates having regard to the equality of opportunity doctrine enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The minimum requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution is that citizens must have an opportunity to apply for jobs in public services. Equality of opportunity is achieved by subjecting all candidates to a process of selection whereby their relative merit is determined. Subject to the laws relating to reservation, appointments must be made on the basis of merit. Unfortunately the state of affairs as is prevalent in the State is most depressing. The rules, instructions etc. are never followed by the appointing authority. In the matter of making appointments, even the constitutional mandate is ignored. Article 16 of the Constitution is observed only in its breach. Unfortunately the state of affairs as is prevalent in the State is most depressing. The rules, instructions etc. are never followed by the appointing authority. In the matter of making appointments, even the constitutional mandate is ignored. Article 16 of the Constitution is observed only in its breach. The devise adopted by the appointing authority is ingenious. Not only where a temporary need exists, but even where there is a substantive vacancy, the appointing authority without advertising the post and without considering the relative merit of the candidates who may apply, chooses to appoint persons on personal approach. To give it a color of legality, appointments are initially made on daily wage basis. The tenure is precarious, whether it is described as purely temporary, ad hoc or on daily wage basis. Persons so appointed are continued for sometime and thereafter they are sought to be granted a regular scale of pay, and very often a daily wage employee is thereafter described as purely temporary employee or ad hoc employee. The appointee continues to work for two or three years, and thereafter recommendation is made for his regularization or absorption in service. Very often the game succeeds and appointments are made under the State without advertising the posts and without judging the relative merit of the candidates who may apply. This is in complete defiance of the instruction/circular issued by the State from time to time and obviously in breach of the principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, The question is, when such illegal appointments are terminated, should the court come to the aid of such appointee who has procured the appointment by illegal means. I may only notice the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union V/s. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors. -- , wherein it was observed that such appointments are given and taken on monetary considerations. The appointing authority obviously acts on ulterior considerations in appointing such a person. The misfortune is that when that appointing authority is transferred the successor follows the same pattern, and the game has to be played over again. 3. The facts of this case also demonstrate this ingenious modes operandi. The petitioner himself states that in the year 1984 permanent post of clerk fell vacant in the Accounts Division of the Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The facts of this case also demonstrate this ingenious modes operandi. The petitioner himself states that in the year 1984 permanent post of clerk fell vacant in the Accounts Division of the Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The petitioner was an applicant who was interviewed by the competent authority and was appointed as a clerk on daily wages with effect from 25-4-1984. Annexure-1 is his letter of appointment which is date 7th December, 1984, but the appointment is with effect from an earlier date namely, 25-4-1984. This is quite unusual, but what is noticeable in the latter of appointment is the statement that the petitioner will have no claim for regular appointment on the basis of such appointment, and further his service can be terminated at any time without notice to the petitioner. The appointing authority is the Director, Adult Education and Informal Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. It is not the case of the petitioner that the permanent posts which fell vacant were advertised and that intending candidates were asked to apply. It is also not stated that the petitioner was interviewed by any establishment Committee or the Selection Committee. One could understand the appointment of the petitioner on daily wage basis pending regular appointment, because the exigencies of the situation may compel the appointing authority to make appointment on daily wage basis till regular appointments are made, particularly when the post was a permanent post. That was never done, and according to the petitioner his name was recommended for absorption on temporary and ad hoc basis on daily wages, Annexure-2 is another letter of appointment dated 4th January, 1986 whereby the petitioner, a daily wager was appointed on temporary and ad hoc basis on the post of Clerk cum-Typist in the scale of Rs. 580-860 and posted to work under the Adult Education Scheme, Gaya. It will appear from Annexure-2 that the petitioner who had been working on daily wage basis was appointed on temporary and ad hoc basis with a scale of pay. The letter of appointment (Annexure-2) again mentions that his services could be terminated at any time without notice to the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, he worked at Gaya till he was transferred to Patna by order dated 14th May, 1987. The letter of appointment (Annexure-2) again mentions that his services could be terminated at any time without notice to the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, he worked at Gaya till he was transferred to Patna by order dated 14th May, 1987. It is the case of the petitioner that since his mother was suffering from a serious disease he had requested to be transferred to Patna, which was granted. However, later transpired that there was no existing vacancy at Patna and, therefore, he could not joint his post and was not even paid his monthly wages. Annexure 3/1 does not mention that the petitioner was being transferred, but the letter of appointment states that the petitioner, a clerk on daily wages, was being appointed as a Clerk in the office of the District Adult Education Officer, Patna on a temporary basis. The appointment was purely temporary and could be terminated without prior notice. He was deputed to work in the office of Adult Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna, till further orders. From the facts stated above it would be apparent that though the petitioner claims that permanent posts were lying vacant against which he bad been appointed, his initial appointment was on daily wage basis. He was thereafter appointed under Annexure-2 on a temporary and ad hoc basis with a monthly scale of pay. Again by Annexure 3/1 he was appointed on a purely temporary basis and continued to work at Patna. The post was never advertised, and is difficult to find a justification for continuing such an appointment against a permanent vacancy for so long a period. By order (Annexure-4) issued by the Director, Adult and Informal Education addressed to all District Adult Education Officers, all appointments made to the posts as mentioned therein including the post of Clerks made on or after 14th May, 1987 were cancelled. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that the termination of his services was as a measure of punishment, because there were some charges against him, but he was not communicated those charges or allegations. He further challenged this order on the ground that some other persons including one Gautam Kumar Singh (not a party in this writ petition) were retained in service, even though they were appointed later. The petitioner was, therefore, discriminated. He further challenged this order on the ground that some other persons including one Gautam Kumar Singh (not a party in this writ petition) were retained in service, even though they were appointed later. The petitioner was, therefore, discriminated. The petitioner claims to have made a representation for his transfer to Munger since there was no vacancy at Patna. This representation was made on 30th December, 1987, much after the issuance of the order (Annexure-4) dated 18-6-1987 cancelling such appointment. It will be noticed that the last appointment letter of the petitioner bears the date 14th May, 1987 (Annexure 3/1) obviously, therefore, there was no question of acceeding to the request of the petitioner. The petitioners case is that though his representation was rejected, he was not informed of the same, and therefore on 20th March, 1990, he made another representation, which is Annexure-7. By a supplementary affidavit it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners representation was finally rejected on 6-11-1990 vide Annexure-8. 5. It is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the termination of his employment was by way of punishment. Annexure-4 is a general direction issued by the Director, Adult and Informal Education canceling all appointments made on or after 14th May, 1987. Admittedly, no proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner nor does the order of termination refer to any charge against the petitioner. Annexure-4 therefore cannot be assailed on the ground that the order was passed as a measure of punishment without notice to the petitioner. So far the other submission is concerned, namely, that one Gautam Kumar Singh was retained in service though appointed later, I would not like to express any opinion on this aspect of the matter. No particular have been given as to when Gautam Kumar Singh was appointed and in what manner. Moreover, Gautam Kumar Singh is not a party in this writ petition and. therefore, no order can be passed at this stage affecting his interest. At best, the submission of the petitioner is that if his appointment was cancelled on the basis that it was illegal, other ill al appointments should also be cancelled. One cannot take exception to this submission, but assuming that other illegal appointments were not cancelled that would not entitle the petitioner to the relief that he should be continued illegally. At best, the submission of the petitioner is that if his appointment was cancelled on the basis that it was illegal, other ill al appointments should also be cancelled. One cannot take exception to this submission, but assuming that other illegal appointments were not cancelled that would not entitle the petitioner to the relief that he should be continued illegally. In appropriate cases with a view to avoid discrimination the Court may direct such illegal appointments also to be cancelled, if not already done. 6. It was then submitted by the petitioner that Annexure-4 will not apply to the case of the petitioner because he was initially appointed on 7-12-1984 with effect from 25-4-1984. That may be so. but thereafter the petitioner was again appointed on temporary and ad hoc basis by order dated 4th January, 1986 (Annexure-2) and posted at Gaya. He was thereafter again appointed on U-5-19W and posted at Patna on a temporary basis. The last letter of appointment bears the date 14th May, 1987, and is, therefore, government by the order as contained in Annexure-4. 7. It was then submitted that a Screening Committee was appointed which recommended that the petitioner may be absorbed in service. That recommendation was apparently not accepted by the Government and the petitioners representation was, therefore, rejected. 8. In a case with such feature I do not feel persuaded to exercise my writ jurisdiction, and to grant relief to the petitioner. If the order (Annexure-4) cancelling the illegal appointments is quashed, it would amount to continuing the appointments illegally made. The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the petitioner was appointed against a permanent vacancy initially on daily wage basis, and thereafter on a temporary ad hoc basis, Regular appointments were never made. The petitioner, therefore, continued to occupy the post without the post being advertised and without a proper selection being made for appointment to such posts. This was clearly in breach of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Since I am satisfied that the petitioners appointment and its continuation was illegal, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In such cases, even the rule of aula altered partum will not apply as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Since I am satisfied that the petitioners appointment and its continuation was illegal, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In such cases, even the rule of aula altered partum will not apply as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and Ors. V/s. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and Ors. -- . 9. The writ petition has, therefore, no merit and the same is accordingly rejected. 10. S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. I agree.