Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 1.10.97 and 18.11.97 passed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively, whereby service of the petitioner has been terminated with effect from 18.11.97. 2. The petitioners case is that he was appointed in the year 1986 in the Animal Husbandry Department as Laboratory Assistant for a temporary period of six months. It is stated that after expiry of six months he was allowed to continue in service by making extension for a further period of six months and ultimately his service was regularised by the Selection Committee. The petitioners further case is that in the year 1989 he was transferred and posted against vacant post of Ganak, vide order of respondent no. 5. Regional Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department and was posted at Palamau. It was specifically mentioned in the order that in the event appointment was made by the Directorate against the aforesaid post or any body was posted, the petitioner would be reverted back to his original post as Laboratory Assistant. The petitioner said to have been confirmed in the post of Ganak by order dated 16.10.93. A copy of the said order dated 16.10.93 filed and annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. However, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 2.9.96 asking him to show cause as to why his appointment should not be cancelled on the ground that appointment had not been made by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, who alone was the competent authority. After filing of the show cause the service of the petitioner was terminated holding that his appointment itself was illegal and without any authority. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents, wherein it is, inter alia stated that in the year 1991 and 1992 the State of Bihar issued circulars and orders under the signature of Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar directing all the field officers of Animal Husbandry Department not to make appointment on Class IV and Class III posts. In spite of specific circular, illegal appointments were made from the office of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department without following the procedure of appointment and recruitment rules. In spite of specific circular, illegal appointments were made from the office of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department without following the procedure of appointment and recruitment rules. When it came to the notice of the Government then the Regional Directors were directed to review all the appointments and terminate the services of those persons whose appointments were made without any advertisement and without any interview. 4. I have heard Mr. Dilip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned JC to GP 2. 5. Mr. Jerath mainly contended that before 1991 and 1992 the Regional Deputy Directors of the Directorate were vested with the power of appointment and it was only in 1991 and 1992 the power has been taken away by the Government and according to the learned counsel, the petitioner was appointed in 1986 and was regularised in 1988 and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be without any authority. I do not find much force in the submission of the learned counsel. It is the petitioners own case that in the year 1986 he was appointed on a contract for six months as Laboratory Assistant and that period was extended by six months again. The services of the petitioner and other persons were regularised in 1988 without following the procedure and in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Not only that in 1993 the Regional Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry Department has regularised the services of the petitioner in the post of Ganak. Admittedly in 1993 the Regional Deputy Director was not competent to make appointment. In this way it appears that since the beginning the appointment of the petitioner and other persons was done in gross violation of the Article 16 of the Constitution of India as also the recruitment rules. In my opinion, therefore, the service of the petitioner has been rightly terminated by the respondent-authority. Moreover, in similar circumstances this Court refused to grant relief in a writ application filed by similarly situated person being CWJC No. 1005/97(R) disposed of on 28.11.97. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.