Judgment B. L. Yadav, J. 1. The four analogous writ petitions (hereinafter to be referred to as first, second, third and fourth writ-petitions) have been preferred by the respective petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India and since common question of law is involved in these cases, the same are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners in their respective writ-petitions are to issue writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 5th July, 1988 Annexure- 7 to the first writ petition), dated 5th July, 1988 ; annexure-7 to the second writ petition), dated 16th March, 1989 (Annexure-1 to the third writ petition)and 5th July, 1988 (Annexure-1) to the fourth writ petition) passed by the executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation investigation Division, Darbhanga and the order dated 28.4.1988 (Annexure-4), order dated 28th April, 1988, order dated 28.4.1988 (Annexure-2)and order dated 28.4.1988 (Annexure-2), respectively passed by the Joint secretary, Minor Irrigation, Patna, by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated. 3. The facts are almost admitted. The petitioners were appointed by the executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation investigation, Darbhanga Division on 5th June, 1982. The petitioners were selected by the Selection Committee constituted under the rules. The appointment letter have been annexed as Annexures by the petitioners with their respective writ petitions. the names were invited by the Selection committee. The retrenched staffs of the Division were also called by the selection Committee for their regular appointment. The merit and efficiency were judged by the Selection committee and thereafter appointments were made. The petitioners joined their services on 8th January, 1982. The petitioners are treated to be permanent staff for good reason. 4. The service books of the petitioners have been maintained and deduction in connection with general provident fund was also being made by the Department from their salary. The petitioners have become fulfledged government servants. 5. On 28th April, 1988, the Joint secretary, Water Resources, Minor irrigation wrote to the Chief Engineer minor irrigation, Muzaffarpur, for cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners. The appointments of the petitioners were made by Sri Ram laknan Sinha, the then Executive engineer. The Joint Secretary wrote the letter, as the appointments of the petitioners were not made in accordance with law. The appointments of the petitioners were made by Sri Ram laknan Sinha, the then Executive engineer. The Joint Secretary wrote the letter, as the appointments of the petitioners were not made in accordance with law. Rather the appointments were made against the procedure indicated in different letters issued by the Government. On 17th june, 1988 the Superintending engineer, Minor Irrigation, Muzaffarpur, wrote to the Executive Engineer of the Division to enquire into the matter with direction to ascertain whether the appointments made by shri Ram Lakhan Sinha, Executive engineer, were in accordance with law, if not the same may be cancelled. The executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation investigation Division without applying his mind to the letters of the Joint secretary and the Superintending engineer passed an order on 5th July, 1988 stating that the services of the petitioners were being terminated as directed by the Joint Secretary, Minor irrigation Department, Government of bihar. The petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before their services were terminated. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed by one Chandeshwar Prasad singh, Assistant in the office of the joint Secretary to the Government, minor Irrigation Department, relying on the averments made therein. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit it was stated that the Executive Engineer, minor Irrigation Investigation division, Darbnanga, Sri Ram Lakhan prasad Sinha had no authority to appoint the petitioners against Class iv post, as the same was against the relevant rules, i. e. circular No.16441 dated 3rd December, 1980. A true copy of the Government order providing the procedure for selection to Class IV category has been filed along with the counter-affidavit as annexure-A. It provides that a selection Committee shall be constituted in every district under the chairmanship of the District magistrate. Clause 10 of the aforesaid government order is specific that any appointment contrary to the government order shall be cancelled and the officer responsible for the lapses will have to face stern disciplinary action. " The Chief engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Muzaffarpur, was accordingly directed to cancel all the appointments shown in Annexure-1 of the first writ petition and the petitioners services have been terminated by the impugned orders of the respective writ petitions. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were appointed by Sri Ram lakhan Pd. Sinha, the then Executive engineer after following the procedure prescribed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were appointed by Sri Ram lakhan Pd. Sinha, the then Executive engineer after following the procedure prescribed. Hence the appointments cannot be said to be illegal. Further before terminating the services of the petitioners in these writ petitions the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed but without affording opportunity of hearing the petitioners have been terminated. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, refuted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and urged that Annexure-A filed along with the counter-affidavit is Government order/circular for appointment of the persons against Class IV post. Clause vii of the said Government order (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit)clearly provides that the District magistrate shall be Chairman of the selection Committee and other officers including the District Welfare Officer, district Planning Officer etc. shall act as its members. The interview shall be held by the Selection Committee and a panel of the successful candidates shall be prepared and out of this panel the appointment shall be made by 31st of january, 1981, and details shall be furnished by the 15th February, 1981. There shall be no discrimination in the selection of the candidates and any deviation from the Rule shall be made in that case the appointment of Class iv employees shall be cancelled. As the petitioners were appointed in violation of the relevant rules/circular (Annexure-A) hence the petitioners had rightly been terminated by the impugned orders. The principles of natural justice would not apply. In any case, the petitions contain disputed question of fact and no ground of interference under Article 226 of the constitution has been made out. 9. Having evaluated the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the points for our determination are: (a) whether the appointments of the petitioners have been made after following the prescribed procedure, and (b) whether the principles of natural justice have been followed? 10. As regards the first point the procedure for the appointments to the class IV employees has been given in the Government Order dated 3rd december, 1988 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit ). 10. As regards the first point the procedure for the appointments to the class IV employees has been given in the Government Order dated 3rd december, 1988 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit ). The procedure has made it obligatory that there shall be a Selection Committee under the chairmanship of the District magistrate, the District Welfare officer, the District Planning Officer, three senior officers of the different departments of the district nominated by the District Magistrate and two officers of the district concerning development Departments, and it shall prepare a list of competent candidates by May of every year and out of that list appointment to Class IV posts shall be made during that period. Some other provisions nave also been made in that. The material part of the provision is that Selection Committee for appointment of Class IV employees would be constituted under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate, the district Welfare Officers and its other members quoted in paragraph 7 at page 38 of the brief. In the instant case that procedure was certainly not followed, as the appointments were made under the signature of the executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation investigation Division, Darbhanga, on 5.6.1982 as stated in paragraph 2 of the first writ petitions. The appointment letters of the petitioners, namely, akhrul Islam at Serial No.3, Swaraj kumar Sinha at Serial No.6 and ramekbal Yadav at Serial No.4 are indicated (vide Annexure-1 ). From paragraph 2 it appears that appointment letter has been issued by the Executive engineer, Minor Irrigation Investigation Divis- ion, Darbhanga, as it was earlier referred that a Selection Committee was to be constituted under the chairmanship of the District Magistrate. Whether the appointment letters issued or the selection made otherwise than the procedure prescribed can be said to be legal so as to entitle the petitioners to hold Class IV posts. It would not be inapt to state a legal maxim " Act us Legitimi Non Recipiunt Modum" which connotes that when doing of anything in a particular manner is sanctioned by the law then the things cannot be done in a different way. It would not be inapt to state a legal maxim " Act us Legitimi Non Recipiunt Modum" which connotes that when doing of anything in a particular manner is sanctioned by the law then the things cannot be done in a different way. It is interesting to notice that the American view in Trans America Mortgage Advisors, INC (Tama) V/s. Harry Lewis [444 US 11, 62 Law Ed.2nd 146, 100 S. C.242] as follows: "a Court must be chary of reading of other remedies into a statute which expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies; when a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes the negative of any other mode. " 11. In Taylor V/s. Taylor [ (1876) Ch. D.4261; Jessel M. R. observed at page 431 as follows: "when a statutory power is conferred for the first time upon a Court or an authority and the mode of exercising it is pointed, it means that no other mode is to be adopted. " 12. In Nazir Ahmad V/s. The King emperor [ (1936) 36 Ind. Appeals 372], the Privy Council, the Lord Roche, held at pages 381-82 as follows: "the rule which applies is a different and not less well-recognised rule viz, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. " In the State of U. P. V/s. Singhara singh [ai. R.1964 S. C.3581 it was held by his Lordship A. K. Sarkar, J (as he then was):- "the mode adopted in (1876) 1 Ch.426 is well-recognised and is founded on sound principles. The result is that if a Statute has conferred a power to do one act and has laid down method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the Joing of the Act in any other manner; than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this was not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted" 13. In view of the discussion of relevant law made hereinbefore it is manifest that when a procedure has been prescribed for doing a thing or to make a selection it must be positively followed and there must be no deviation. In view of the discussion of relevant law made hereinbefore it is manifest that when a procedure has been prescribed for doing a thing or to make a selection it must be positively followed and there must be no deviation. In case deviation has been made, it means that act has not been done at all. In the instant case also, in our considered opinion, as the procedure prescribed for the selection or Class IV employees as given in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit for constituting a selection Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate was not followed, rather the Executive engineer, Minor Irrigation, appears to have held some interview and in that the petitioners in these analogous petitions appear to have been selected. In this view of the matter, the appointments of the petitioners cannot be said to have been made as required by law. On the basis of such illegal appointments, the petitioners cannot be said to have acquired any right. On the basis of such illegal appointments, the petitioners cannot claim a right to continue on the post. The appointments of the petitioners were accordingly correctly cancelled by the impugned orders. 14. As regards the next submission about the violation of the principles of natural justice, suffice it to say that the principles of natural justice are not straight jacket Formula. In R. V/s. Secretary of State for the Home department [1983 (3) All. E. R.796] it was observed as follows: "principles of natural justice not to be stretched too far. They should not be allowed to be exploited as a purely technical weapon to undo a decision which does not in reality cause a substantial injustice and which had the party been really aggrieved by, could have been set right by immediate action. " In Karnataka Public Service commission and others\ V/s. B. M. Vijai shanker [jt (1992) (4) SC 348] Hon ble r. M. Sahay, observed as follows: "the rules cannot be construed with the same yardstick as a provision in a penal statute. Examianations are conducted to get best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Absence of hearing in such matters does not affect any interest, rather it could delay declaration of results of other candidates, which would have been more unfair. Natural justice is a concept which has succeeded in keeping the arbitrary actions within limits. Examianations are conducted to get best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Absence of hearing in such matters does not affect any interest, rather it could delay declaration of results of other candidates, which would have been more unfair. Natural justice is a concept which has succeeded in keeping the arbitrary actions within limits. But its use has been weighed in golden balance of fairness. But the Courts have been circumspect in extending it to situations where it would cause more injustice than justice. " 15. In the present case we are satisfied that the appointments of the petitioner were made for Class IV posts without following the prescribed procedure. In that situation, principles of natural justice were not required to be followed. Those principles are salutary, no doubt, but they are not to be followed in every case. It has to be weighed in golden scale. It depends upon facts and circumstances of the case as to when it has to be followed and when it need not be followed. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the principles of natural justice were not to be followed. 16. In view of the premises aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these analogous writ-petitions. Consequently, they fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.