Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. This is yet another case of an appointment made in matter disregard of law and on extraneous consideration. The appointing authorities of the State of Bihar, particularly when they are about to superannuate, make large scale appointments, not only in utter disregard of the constitutional mandate and the rules and the laws framed, but also against express prohibition by the State Government. The misuse of the power has attained dangerous proportions and, therefore, instead of disposing of this writ petition, as we have disposed of so many others, by a short order, we decided to analyse the problem in the proper perspective, and to lay down the guidelines consistent with law, which to us appears imperative if a semblance of discipline has to be restored in the matter of appointments in this State. The impunity with which the law is disregarded is only matched by the ingenuity of the appointing authorities. The modus operandi adopted by them renders the constitutional mandate under Article 16 of the Constitution otiose, and all the rules, regulations, instructions and directions issued by the State Government are made to appear as trivial things of no consequence. It cannot be said in this design the beneficiaries are not at fault, because the appointing authorities and the appointees are always in part delicto. The normal device followed in such cares is to take an appointment on daily wage basis, continue the appointment for some more time, and then to regularise the services of the appointee on the ground that he has worked for a few monts or years Obviously, in making such appointments no need is left for complying with the requirement of advertisement/selection process, selection committees etc. , and in all such cases appointments are made on personal approaches made by the candidates. By regularisation is meant confiramation in service, and it is seriously urged before us that since the service have beep regularised, the appointees becpms permanent Government servants. , and in all such cases appointments are made on personal approaches made by the candidates. By regularisation is meant confiramation in service, and it is seriously urged before us that since the service have beep regularised, the appointees becpms permanent Government servants. Such appointments are granted and accepted in the hope that before the illegality is detected, several months or years may have passed, and on the basis of such service rendered an argument based on equity and interest of justice can always be advanced before a Court, if challenged, in the hope that the Court will be kind and generous enough to condone the illegality, if any, and to protect the interest of the persons so appointed by directing the authorities to continue them in regular service. The result is that despite numerous judgments and others of the Supreme court and this Court, this illegal "business" of granting illegal appointments has prospered, and so have appointing authorities. The major sufferers of this treagedy are those citizens who are innocent and resourceless even if more capable, competent and honest and who have nothing to offer in exchange for the appointment. The Constitution does not guarantee employment to every citizen, but even the limited right of being considered for appointment is denied to the law abiding citizens, who wait for an advertisement to be issued, so that in response thereto they may have a chance of proving their merit and competence. The other unfortunate aspect of the matter is that while in many cases illegal appointments, when detected, are cancelled, the main culprit, namely, the appointing authority goes scot free. 2. The facts of the case in hand amply demonstrate the state of affairs as they exist. The petitioner has impugned the order terminating bis appointment on the ground that it was illegally made. In fact, the letter of appointment and the subsequent letter regularising his services, appear to be fabricated documents, because it appears that the memo numbers and dates mentioned therein are fictitious when compared with the records maintained in the office. We may ignore this aspect of the matter, but the facts which are undisputed speak for themselves. The patitioner claims that he was appointed as a Non-Medical Assistant on daily wages by letter bearing No.1233 dated 20th September, 1989, issued under the signature of the Civil surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar, respondent No.4 herein. We may ignore this aspect of the matter, but the facts which are undisputed speak for themselves. The patitioner claims that he was appointed as a Non-Medical Assistant on daily wages by letter bearing No.1233 dated 20th September, 1989, issued under the signature of the Civil surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar, respondent No.4 herein. He was posted to work at Mohanpur Health Centre where he joined on 22th september, 1989. Only six months later the petitioner filed a representation on 27th march, 1990, stating that he had been working as a daily wage employee on the post of Non-Medicial Assistant since 22-9-89, therefore, bis services may be regularised against the vacant post of Non-Medicial Assistant. A few days later respondent No.4, Civil Surgeon, by letter No.432 dated 2-4-1990 regularised the petitioner against the post of Non-Medical Assistant and directed him to submit his joining report along with the health certificate. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner gave his joining report and continued to work as regular employee. He worked at different stations as and when required. He was, however, aggrieved by the fact that since the date of his regularisation i e. , 2-4-1990 he was not being paid his salary. The civil Surgeon (respondent No.4) no doubt directed the Incharge Medical officer, Primary Health Centre, Mohanpur to pay to the petitioner his salary, but despite that, the petitioner was not paid his salary though he had been confirmed against the post by the competent authority. This compelled the petitioner to move the High Court by filing a writ petition being C. W. J. C. No.974 of 1991. The order passed in the said writ petition has been annexed as Annexure-8. This Court noticed that a similar grivance had been raised by the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No.3025 of 1991, disposed of on 17-9-1991, and this court had directed the Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Health (Family Welfare), Government of Bihar to examine the validity si appointments made by Dr. M. P. Lal, the then Civil Surgeon cum-Chief medicial Officer, Deoghar, who bad recently retired, and in espect of whom. M. P. Lal, the then Civil Surgeon cum-Chief medicial Officer, Deoghar, who bad recently retired, and in espect of whom. there were serious allegations of making illegal and irregular appointments on mass scale during the last phase of his tenure of service The Court had also directed that in such cases, the person who makes the appointment is the real wrong doer, and that the authority should first consider the question of taking appropriate action against the appointing authority. The writ oetitioner was also disposed of in the same terms, but with the observation and direction that the petitioner will continue to be paid salary in respect of the post against which he was appointed till such time a final decision was taken in regard to cancellation of his appointment in accordance with law. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, which was disposed of on 30th September.1991, the oetitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 20th September, 1991. to which the petitioner replied by stating that he had initially been appointed daily waees and subsequently his services have been confirmed. Since his writ petition was pending before this Court he did not submit a detailed repaly Again a show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 33th march 1992 asking him to submit a detailed show cause along with a ohotostat copy of the document regarding his educational qualification. The petitioner filed his show cause on 1-4-1992 along with the relevant documents including the order where by he was appointed on daily wages, and the order dated 2-4-1990, whereby his services were regularised. He also submitted documents relating to his educational qualification. 4. On 25-9-1992 a letter was issued by respondent No.3, the Joint secretary in the Department of Health addressed to the Civil Surgeon (respondent No 5) and on the basis of that letter the services of the petitioner have been terminated. A copy of the letter of the Joint Secretary has been annexed as annexure-13 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the letter (Annexure-13)respondent No.4, the Civil Surgeon, issued a letter dated 13-10-1992 terminating the appointment of the petitioner on the ground mentioned in the said letter, which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. A copy of the letter of the Joint Secretary has been annexed as annexure-13 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the letter (Annexure-13)respondent No.4, the Civil Surgeon, issued a letter dated 13-10-1992 terminating the appointment of the petitioner on the ground mentioned in the said letter, which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. The aforesaid order of termination refers to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, and further mentions the fact that the matter was enquired into in the light of the relevant rules, regulations, circulars applicable to appointments made against Class HI and Class IV posts. It had been found that the appointment of the petitioner by then Civil Surgeon, Dr. M. P. Lal had been made in complete disregard of all the rules, regulations and directions and in complete disregard of the procedure prescribed for such appointments. The petitioner had been appointed on 20-9-1989 on daily wages when there was a clear direction from the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar by bis letter No.7639 dated 11-6-1986 directing that no appointment shall made on daily wage basis. Morever, the appointment had been made by dr Lal one year before his retirement, when according to the order of the bihar Government dated 12-7-1985, there was a clear direction not to make appointments within two years of the date of retirement. It was also found that the letter of appointment on daily wage basis bearing Memo No.1233 dated 20-9-1989 as well as the order of regularisation bearing letter No.432 dated 20th April, 1990, had not been issued from the office of the Civil suraeon because according to the record maintained in the office of the the Civil Surgeon, the letters bearing those Memo numbers and dates had been issued to different authorities and were not letters of appointment or regularisation, as claimed by the petitioner. Having regard to these facts the show cause submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and consequently his services were terminated. The petitioner has attacked the order of termination (Annexure-14) on various grounds, but the petitioner does not assert in his writ petition that any procedure was followed in makfag the appointment. Having regard to these facts the show cause submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and consequently his services were terminated. The petitioner has attacked the order of termination (Annexure-14) on various grounds, but the petitioner does not assert in his writ petition that any procedure was followed in makfag the appointment. It is not his case that the vacancy was notified in any manner whatsoever, and that applications were invited from eligible candidates, and that such candidates were subjected to a process of selection, and appointments made on the basis of their relative merit While we find no reason to ignore the other grounds mentioned in the impugned order (Annexure-14) which led to the termination of appointment of the petitioner, we are really concerned about the manner in which appointment are made without following any procedure whatsoever. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been asserted that pursuant to the order of the High Court ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his show cause. In fact, two notices were issued to the petitioner, and thereafter a detailed enquiry was made and a report submitted to the State Government. The matter was further scrutinised at the State Government level, and finding the appointment to be illegal the Government communicated its decision through the Joint Secretary health Department by letter dated 25-9-1992 (Annexure-13 ). Consequent, thereto the Civil Surgeon issued the order terminating the services of the, petitioner (Annexure-14 ). It is also stated that the initial order appointing the petitioner as Non-Medical Assistant on daily wages as also the letter regularising his services were not issued from the office of the Civil Surgeon, deoghar. because those Memos related to other persons and were issued in relation to other matters. Neither of them was issued in connection with the appointment or regularisation of the services of the petitioner. Further, the chief Secretary, Government of Bihar vide his letter No.7939 dated 11-6-1986 had completely banned appointment on daily wage basis. Despite this the then Civil Surgeon not only appointed the petitioner on daily wage basis, but also purported to regularise his services within six months. Further, the chief Secretary, Government of Bihar vide his letter No.7939 dated 11-6-1986 had completely banned appointment on daily wage basis. Despite this the then Civil Surgeon not only appointed the petitioner on daily wage basis, but also purported to regularise his services within six months. Moreover, in the matter of appointment to such posts, the appointing authority had to act on the recommendation of the Appointment committee comprising Deputy Director, Tuberculosis, a Medical Officer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, State Leprosy Officer and assistant Director, Filaria. The appointment could be made only against a sanctioned post. No such Committee was ever constituted nor had the committee any occasion to make its recommendation. There were only two sanctioned posts of Non-Medical Assistant, but the petitioner was illegally appointed against a third post. It is also asserted that the appointment was made in complete violation of the Circulars of the Government in the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and no advertisement whatsoever was made for the purpose of appointment. The action of the civil Surgeon was in complete violation of the principles laid down in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Not only was the Civil surgeon required to call for names from the Employment Exchange, but he was required to publish advertisement in the daily newspaper notifying the vacancies and prescribing the requisite qualification. The petitioner was a backdoor entrant in the service and was, therefore, not entitled to any relief from this Court. 6. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder, which contains a lot of argumentative matter, but the fact that the vacancies were not notified, and that the candidates were not subjected to any process of selection, has not been denied by them even in the rejoinder. On such facts it is quite apparent that the appointment of the petitioner suffered from many infirmities, and what is quite patent is that the appointment was made clearly in breach of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and was. therefore, not an "irregular appointment but an illegal appointment, which by reason of being in breach of the constitutional mandate was void Obviously, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction because that would amount to perpetuating an illegality. therefore, not an "irregular appointment but an illegal appointment, which by reason of being in breach of the constitutional mandate was void Obviously, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction because that would amount to perpetuating an illegality. This apart, the petitioner has no right which can be enforced, since his purported appointment and regularisation were void. 7. In very large number of cases this Court has come across appointments made by the appointing authorities in breach of directions issued by the State Government Even when the State Government issues an order directing the appointing authorities not to make appointments on daily wage basis, the appointing authorities still persist in making large scale appointments on daily wage basis Such appointments are made without asking for names from the Employment Exchange. No advertisement is issued in local dailies, nor is any publicity given to the vacancies so as to enable the eligible candidates to apply for appointment. In some cases it is said that the vacancies were notified on the Notice Board of the office of the appointing authority, but it would be difficult in such cases to produce any proof of that fact. It appears that such noticed only by the applicants, who are appointed, and by none else In large number of cases, where appointments are made for a short duration, which provides an excuse for not resorting to the normal procedure, those appointments are continued by grant of successive extensions from time to time. Ultimately, the demand of the appointee for regularisation is conceded, as he regularised. 8. It has always been a matter of concern as to why the appointing authorities make such appointments completely disregarding the Jaw inoluding the constitutional provisions. In one of the earlier decisions one of us (B P. Singh, J.) in Mahendra Ram V/s. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau [1989 b. L, T.27] observed : "where a Constitutional mandate is breached, it matters little who is at fault. The action must be declared to be invalid. In cases of the nature with which I am concerned in the instant case, it may not be correct to say that the appointee i not at fault. Such appointments are not offered -but are procured and T need not comment about the considerations which go into the matter. " 9. The action must be declared to be invalid. In cases of the nature with which I am concerned in the instant case, it may not be correct to say that the appointee i not at fault. Such appointments are not offered -but are procured and T need not comment about the considerations which go into the matter. " 9. The Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees union V/s. Delhi Administration [ 1992 (4) SCC 99 ] in clear and unequivocal terms noticed this phenomenon and observed that the courts should take judicial notice of the fact the such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The Court observed : "apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot be directed to be regularised for the reasons given above, we may take note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction for regularisation of workmen on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days, has been leading. Although there is an employment Exchange Act which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchanges, and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the Employment Register. The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new scourse of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the employment Exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such backdoor, entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in government departments, public undertakings or agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in government departments, public undertakings or agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equaliy injurious effect of indiscriminate regularisation has been that many of the agencies have stopped undertaking casual or temporary works though thev are urgent and essential for fear that if those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days they have to be absorbed as regular employees although the works are time-bound and there is no need of the workmen beyond the completion of the works undertaken. The public interests are thus jeopardised on both counts. " 10. The other question to which we must address ourselves is to the meaning to be given to the term regularisation. It is a misconception that an illegality can be regularised. It is well settled that what can be regularised is that which is irregular, and not which is illegal and void. It is equally wellsettled that regularisation does not connote permanency. I may only refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court, In R. N. Nanjundappa V/s. T. Thimmaiah [1972 SC 1767], the Court observed : "counsel on behalf of the respondent, contended that regularisation would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularisation did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularisation of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the constitution, illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment To acceded to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect or setting at naught the rules. " 11. " 11. In B. N. Nagarajan and others V/s. State of Karnataka and others [air 1979 SC 1616] It was held : "it was argued that the regulatisation of the promotion gave it the colour of permance and the appointments of the promotees as assistant Engineers must therefore be deemed to have been made substantjvely right from the 1st of November, 1956 The argument however is unacceptable to us for two reasons. Firstly the words regular or regularisation do not cannot permance. They are terms talclated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to the methodology followed in making the appointments. They cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of the appointments. " 12. Obviously, therefore, there can be no regularisation of the services of a person whose appointment initially was not merely irregular, but illegal, being in contravention of the provisions of the rules, the law or the constitutional mandate. Such persons, therefore, cannot claim regularisation. The aforesaid (wo decisions of the Supreme Court have held the field so far, and no decision has been brought to our notice which takes a contrary view. Indeed, in a recent decision, reported in [ air 1994 SC 586 ] V. Shreenivas reddy V/s. Government of Andhra Prdesh the Supreme Court referred to the aforesaid two decisions and relied upon them. It is therefore, well-settled that an appointment made in breach of the rules, the laws or the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is illegal and void, and that cannot give rise to a claim for regularisation. This has been reaffirmed in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Peyare Singh [ air 1992 SC 2130 ]. The Court observed : "now coming to the direction that all those ad hoc temporary employees who have continued for more than an year should be regularised, we find it difficult to sustain it. The direction has been given without reference to the existence of a vacancy. The Court observed : "now coming to the direction that all those ad hoc temporary employees who have continued for more than an year should be regularised, we find it difficult to sustain it. The direction has been given without reference to the existence of a vacancy. The direction in effect means that every ad hoc/temporary employee who has been continued for one year should be regularised even though (a) no vacancy is available for him-which means creation of a vacancy (b) he has not sponsored by the Employment exchange nor was be appointed in pursuance of a notification calling for applications which means he had entered by a backdoor (c)he was not eligible and or qualified for the post at the time of his appointment (d) his record of service since his appoinment is not satisfactory. These are in addition to some of the problems indicated by us in para 12, which would arise from giving of such blanket orders. None of the decisions relied upon by the High Court justify such wholesale, unconditional orders" Thirdly, even where an a- hoc or temporary employment is neceseitated on account of the exigencies of adminstration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file If no candidate is available he is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirement of Article 16 should be followed. In other wotds thers must be a notice published in the appro-riate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. " 13. In another recent decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 11994 (2) SCC 630] J and K Public Service Commission v Dr. Narinder Mohan, the Court after considering a large number of decisions of the Supreme court held that the rules, instructions and procedure relating to recruitment should be just fair conforming to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Opportunity has to be given to eligible persons by inviting applications through public notification and recruitment should be according to the valid procedure. It was, therefore, held in that case that the power of regularisation exercised by the Government was ultra vires the recruitment rules. Opportunity has to be given to eligible persons by inviting applications through public notification and recruitment should be according to the valid procedure. It was, therefore, held in that case that the power of regularisation exercised by the Government was ultra vires the recruitment rules. The government had no power to make regular appointments under the recruitment rules without selection by the Public Service Commission. The Court observed : "moreover the proviso to Article 320 (proviso to Sec.133 of J and K Constitution), though gives power to the State Government to specify case or class of case in respect of which consultation with the PSC may be dispensed with still the recruitment shall be in compliance with either of the Article 320 (1) and section 133 (1) of the J and K Constitution or by duly constituted bond or authority. The rules or instructions should be in compliance with the requirements of prescribed shall be just, fair and reasonable. Opportunity shall be given to eligible persons by inviting applications through the public notification and recruitment should be according to the valid procedure and appointment should be of the qualified persons found fit for appointment to a post or an office under the State. Therefore, it must be held that power of relaxation exercised by the government is ultra vires the Rules and the High Court is right in holding that Government cannot relax the rules of recruitment to be made by the PSC. Government have no power to make regular appointment under the Rules without selection by the public Service Commission under Sec.133 (1) read with Rule 5 and Schedule-Ill of the Rules. The next question is whether the direction given by the High Court to regularise the services of the respondents is valid in law. It is true that the ad hoc appointees have been countinuing from 1986 on wards but their appointments are de hora the Rules. Rules prescribe only two modes of recruitment, namely, direct recruitment or promotion by selection. As regards the lectures are concerned, it is only by direct recruitment. It is true that the ad hoc appointees have been countinuing from 1986 on wards but their appointments are de hora the Rules. Rules prescribe only two modes of recruitment, namely, direct recruitment or promotion by selection. As regards the lectures are concerned, it is only by direct recruitment. The mode of recruitment suggested by the High Court, namely regularisation by placing the service record of the respondents before the PSC and consideration thereof and PSCs recommendation in that behalf is only a by brid procedure not contemplated by the rules, Moreover, when the Rules prescribe direct recruitment, every eligible candidate is entitled to be considered and recruitment by open advertisment which is one of the well accepted modes of recruitment. Inviting applications for recruitment to till in notified vacancies is consistent with the right to apply for, by-qualified and eligible persons and consideration of their claim to an office or post under the State is guaranteed right given under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The direction, therefore, issued by the Division Bench is in negation of articles 14 and 16 and in violation to the statutory rules. The psc cannot be directed to devise a third mode of selection, as directed by the High Court, nor be mandated to disobey the constitution and the law," 14. It, therefore appears to be well-settled that an irregular appointment may be regularised, but an appointment made in breach of statutory rules, law, or the contitutional provisions is not irregular, but illegal and void. An illegal or void act cannot be regularised. Regularisation does not Cannot permanency and, therefore, no person who claims to have been regularised can claim that he has been confirmed in service. Where regularisation is permissible, the action which was irregular is cured, but the nature of the appointment remains the same. A temporary employee irregularly appointed does not become a permanent employee merely because his services are regularised by conforming to some matter relating to procedure, not going to the root of the matter, which was not complied earlier at the time of his appointment. 15. The decisions of the Supreme Court above noticed confirm our view that the petitioner can be granted no relief whatsoever. He secured an appointment by illegal means. 15. The decisions of the Supreme Court above noticed confirm our view that the petitioner can be granted no relief whatsoever. He secured an appointment by illegal means. This can be taken judicial notice of, because all the rules, directions and the Constitutional provisions were thrown to the wind when he was appointed. The interestedness of the appointing authority is obvious from the fact that soon after his appointment, only a few months later, he purported to regularise the services of the petitioner. This gives further proof of the malafide intention of the appointing authority. The petitioner was in pari delicto and, therefore, cannot claim any sympathy by saying that he is not to blame. 16. In cases where an appointment is found to have been illegally made, the courts quash the appointment and, therefore, the appointee suffers the consequence. However, the real guilty person, namely, the appointing authority goes scot free. The result it that even though large number of such appointments have been quashed by courts, the appointing authorities have showed total indifference to the orders passed by the courts, and they continue to make such appointments It is a well-known fact, so far as this State is concerned, that appointment in majority of cases has to be brought. The ordinary citizen who has concern for the law and morality, must suffer, even if in terms of capability and merit he is far superior to the unscrupulous ones, who manage the appointments. We have, therefore, felt the need to issue some directions in this regard, so that the appointing authorities. who are primarily guilty in such matters, and who exploit the job seekers taking advantage of their hardship, are equally punished wbed such illegal appointments are brought to the notice of the Government. I, therefore, direct that in each and every case where an appointment is said to have been illegally made, in the sense that the rules governing the appointment have not been followed, and the appointment is made by flouting the law in such a manner that the motive of the appointing authority becomes suspect, simultaneously with the concellation of such illegal appointment, action must be initiated against the appointing authority, and in appropriate cases they should be immediately suspended pending departmental proceeding. If such action is not taken, courts will doubt the genuineness of the reason shown by the government for cancellation of such appointment. If such action is not taken, courts will doubt the genuineness of the reason shown by the government for cancellation of such appointment. I direct that this should be complied with by the Government in each and every case where an appointment is sought to be cancelled on the ground that it was illegally made in circumstances which give rise to a suspicion that the appointment was made on extraneous consideration, including money. 17. The other aspect of the matter which also requires prompt attention by the Governmtnt is the rampant practice of appointing persons on ad-hoc, short term, or temporary basis, which appointments are thereafter continued by grant of extension from time to time. Ultimately, a proposal is made for regularisation of such appointments. Where such appointments initially made are not in accordance with the rules and or Circulars of the government or in breach of the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, they cannot obviously be regularised. However, there appears to be no sense behind continuing such employees on temporary for such long periods If there is a permanent seed for a post, such a post should be sanctioned and filed up in accordance with law on substantive basis. With a view to prevant recurrence of such things in future, I am of the view that the Government must frame appropiate rules whereever necessary to deal with such appointments. and put a time limit beyond which such appointments shall not continue. However, framing of rules may take time and I, therefore, direct by this order as follows : (1) Subject to any rules framed or to be framed by the Government, where the exigencies of service or other pressing causes justify an appointment on temporary basis, such appointment shall not be made for a period more than three months from the date of appointment, and the letter of appointment shall contain a clear condition that the appointment is purely temporary and will stand terminated on the expiry of the period mentioned in the letter of appointment It should further contain a condition that the appointee shall have no right to claim permanency in service or to claim regularisation on the basis of such temporary appointment. (2) If for any valid reason, on the expiry of the initial tenure of appointment, need is felt for cotinuing the appointment, the appointing authority may do so after recording its reasons in writing. Such extension shall not be for a period more than three months, and subject to the same terms and conditions as the initial appointment. (3) If after six months it is still felt that the appointment should be continued for any valid reason, the appointing authority must seek the prior written approval of the State Government before granting any further extension or extensions. If the State government is satisfied, it may permit extension of service for such period as it may deem fit, but subject to the same terms and conditions as the initial appointment Such approval must be communicated to the appointing authority by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary in the Government of Bihar. In the absence of Governments approval, the temporary appointment shall terminate. 18. These directions shall be complied by the State of Bihar, and all the appointing authorities of the State of Bihar till such time appropriate rules are framed by the Government in this regard, in case no rules exist on the subject. 19. With these observations and directions this writ petition is dismissed. 20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for necessary action. He shall communicate this order to all heads of the Department and district authorities, and report compliance to this court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition dismissed.