Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Petitioners of both the cases, being non teaching employees of J.P. University and common question being involved, they are disposed of by the common order. In fact, both the cases were on the Board on 14th February, 2000 while C.W.J.C. No. 834/99 was heard and order reserved on the said date; the other case C.W.J.C. No. 882/98 was taken up on 15th February, 2000 and order was reserved. 2. Petitioners of both the cases have prayed for direction on the respondents to regularise their services/to absorb them against the posts on which they are functioning with further prayer made for payment of salary in their favour, in the regular scale of pay. Brief History of Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 882/98 : 3. Petitioner Ashok Kumar claims to have been appointed as Typist in J.P. Mahila Maha Vidyalaya, Chapra in pursuance of an advertisement, on the recommendation of a Selection Committee made on 20th August, 1978, vide order dated 25th July, 1979 issued by the Principal of the College; since then he is continuing in the said College. 4. The name of petitioner was forwarded by the Principal to the University for approval of his service on 9th April, 1981 (vide Annexure-6), whereinafter the University placed the case of the petitioner and others before a Screening Committee for finalisation of their appointment against 3rd grade and 4th grade posts under the J.P. Mahila College, Chapra. The Committee recommended the name of petitioner and some others vide its meeting dated 8th July, 1985 (Annexure-12) for regularisation of their services. Subsequently, no specific order of regularisation/absorption having issued the present writ petition was preferred. Brief History of Petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 834/99 : 5. The petitioners were appointed against one or other non teaching post in Gopalganj College, Gopalganj by the Principal of the said College as detailed below : Petitioner No. Name Date of appointment Post 1. Harendra Prasad Yadav 1.4.1979 Store keeper 2. Bedant Pandey 27.5.1982 Shorter 3. Umesh Kumar Mishra 27.5.1982 Steno Typist 4. Sudhakar Pandey 6.3.1977 Night Watchman 5. Bijay Bahadur Mishra 4.6.1982 Lab Incharge/Lab Tech. 6. Madan Mohan Pandey 27.5.1982 Lab Tech/Store keeper 7. Rajeshwar Dubey 1.4.1979 Lab Incharge 8. Harihar Choubey 1.4.1979 Counter Clerk/Lab Incharge 9. Sunil Kumar Tiwary 27.5.1982 Lab Incharge 6. Bedant Pandey 27.5.1982 Shorter 3. Umesh Kumar Mishra 27.5.1982 Steno Typist 4. Sudhakar Pandey 6.3.1977 Night Watchman 5. Bijay Bahadur Mishra 4.6.1982 Lab Incharge/Lab Tech. 6. Madan Mohan Pandey 27.5.1982 Lab Tech/Store keeper 7. Rajeshwar Dubey 1.4.1979 Lab Incharge 8. Harihar Choubey 1.4.1979 Counter Clerk/Lab Incharge 9. Sunil Kumar Tiwary 27.5.1982 Lab Incharge 6. According to the petitioners, they were appointed between August 1977 and June 1983 on the basis of local advertisements and recommendations of Selection Committee. Their names were forwarded on 3rd September, 1989 by the Principal of their College showing them working against posts deemed to be sanctioned under staffing pattern (vide Annexure-5). However, no step having been taken for the regularisation of their services/absorption the present writ petition has been preferred. 7. According to Mr. Shivendra Kishore, the counsel for the University, the appointment of petitioners were made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; without proper advertisement in leading newspaper; without any recommendation of a properly constituted Selection Committee; by the Principal, who had no jurisdiction to make appointment, power being vested with the University/Vice Chancellor. The appointments of petitioners being void neither they can be regularised/absorbed nor they are entitled for salary. 8. The counsel for the University also placed reliance on Bench decision of this Court in the case of Diwakar Prasad Yadav @ Diwakar Prasad & ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1986 P.LJ.R. 873 in support of his submission that no claim of salary can be made by person, even if for the period actually worked, if initial appointment is illegal and has no right to hold the post. 9. Reliance was also placed in the case of Satyendra Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 460, and submitted that the petitioners having obtained employment by taking recourse to back door methods have no right to continue. 10. At this stage, one may refer to Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 509 which held that the non teaching posts of a College in accordance with staffing pattern are sanctioned/deemed to be sanctioned by the State and the persons appointed against such posts need no further approval from the State. 11. 11. The aforesaid decision of Full Bench in the case of Braj Kishore Singh (Supra) was relied by both the parties to substantiate their claim. 12. In this respect, the counsel for the University made distinction of the cases of petitioners with the petitioners of Full Bench and placed reliance on one or other un-reported decision of this Court. In the case of Chandra Ketu Singh V/s. The State of Bihar & ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 9822/98) disposed of on 2nd November, 1999, a Bench of this Court took into consideration the ratio laid down by Full Bench that the appointments if made against post in accordance with staffing pattern for them it is not necessary to seek further sanction of the post, but held that the Principal of a College was not authorised to make appointment except for a limited period and appointees appointed without advertisement and recommendation of the Selection Committee cannot derive benefit of Full Bench decision. The other case relied was of Smt. Madhumati Singh & ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 5892/95) wherein this Court vide judgment dated 29th August, 1996 held the appointments of those petitioners in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution having made without advertisement and held the appointments as void. 13. In another case of Ranjeet Kumar & ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 10202/97), this Court vide judgment dated 17th December, 1999 refused to grant relief for regularisation of service/absorption, initial appointments having made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution. It further held that the Full Bench decision in the case of Braj Kishore Singh (Supra) is not applicable to such cases. 14. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on unreported decision of this Court in the case of Ram Pravesh Prasad & ors. V/s. J.P. University & ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 7388/94) disposed of on 15th July, 1997. Therein, the order of refusal to regularise the service of said petitioner was set aside by this Court in view of Full Bench decision of this Court, but the said decision in the case of Ram Pravesh Prasad (Supra) is of no help to the present petitioners. (C.W.J.C. No. 7388/94) disposed of on 15th July, 1997. Therein, the order of refusal to regularise the service of said petitioner was set aside by this Court in view of Full Bench decision of this Court, but the said decision in the case of Ram Pravesh Prasad (Supra) is of no help to the present petitioners. In the said case, the counsel for both the parties accepted that the case of those petitioners were covered by Full Bench decision in Braj Kishore Singh (Supra), which is under dispute in the present case. 15. The counsel for the petitioners lastly raised the question of equitable justice in favour of petitioner, petitioners having worked for about 18 to 23 years. 16. From the decisions, as referred above, one can safely state that. 17. The posts within staffing pattern need no sanction by the State Government under section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and such posts would be deemed to be sanctioned by the State. 18. Appointment of a person against such post cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that no prior approval taken for creation/or sanction of such post. 19. Validity of appointment can be looked into, if appointment is made by an authority not competent to make such appointment. 20. Any appointment- made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Cosntitution; without advertisement and following the procedure of selection is illegal. 21. The persons, whose appointment is void or illegal has no right to claim regularisation of service nor can pray for absorption. 22. To determine the present cases of petitioners, it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant facts, as referred thereunder. The power to appoint against non teaching posts in a constituent college is vested with the University/Vice Chancellor under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The Principals of the constituent colleges were delegated with such power only one by the Vice Chancellor, Bihar University, vide Memo No. B/17791-90 dated 28th June, 1977, which was subsequently withdrawn on 28th June, 1979. This fact has been taken into consideration by this Court in the case of Chandra Ketu Singh (Supra). Thus, Principal of constituent college under the Bihar University had jurisdiction to make appointment against non teaching post only between 28th June, 1977 and 28th June, 1979 and not earlier nor later to the said period. This fact has been taken into consideration by this Court in the case of Chandra Ketu Singh (Supra). Thus, Principal of constituent college under the Bihar University had jurisdiction to make appointment against non teaching post only between 28th June, 1977 and 28th June, 1979 and not earlier nor later to the said period. The State of Bihar issued a resolution vide Memo No. 989 dated 10th May, 1991 and took decision to absorb/adjust non teaching employees, appointed against posts within staffing pattern if such appointment made prior to 10th May, 1986 and to terminate the services of rest appointed after 10th May, 1986. Thereby, the State Government took policy decision to absorb those who completed five years of service or more by the time of publication of resolution dated 10th May, 1991. Both the Colleges, namely, J.P. Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Chapra and Gopalganj College, Gopalganj were constituent units of the Bihar University (now known as B.R.A. Bihar University) and since 1992 they have been carved out and placed under newly established J.P. University. 23. Petitioner Ashok Kumar was appointed after due advertisement published in 1978 and on the recommendation of a Selection Committee made on 20th August, 1978 as a Typist on 25th July, 1979 will be evident from Annexure-2. Such appointment was made by Principal, J.P. Mahila College, Chapra in exercise of power delegated to him vide memo dated 28th June, 1977, which will be also evident from his letter of appointment issued on 25th July, 1979 (Annexure-3). The said letter of appointment clearly shows that at the time, the order of appointment was issued, the other order dated 28th June, 1979 withdrawing the delegation of power had not been served on the College authorities. 24. The University had knowledge that the appointments of petitioner Ashok Kumar and others were made in exigency of work, by stop gap arrangement, after due advertisement and recommendation of Selection Committee, will be evident from letter no. 3007 dated 9th April, 1981 (Annexure-6) written by Principal to the University, wherein the name of petitioner was shown having been appointed as Typist. The Vice Chancellor of Bihar University had also knowledge of such appointment of petitioner Ashok Kumar will be evident from letter no. 3280 dated 25th September, 1981; letter dated 27th August, 1984 and the University report dated 8th July, 1935 (Annexure-12). The Vice Chancellor of Bihar University had also knowledge of such appointment of petitioner Ashok Kumar will be evident from letter no. 3280 dated 25th September, 1981; letter dated 27th August, 1984 and the University report dated 8th July, 1935 (Annexure-12). Thus, so far as it relates to petitioner Ashok Kumar (of C.W.J.C. No. 882/98), his appointment cannot be held to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, nor can be stated to be void. 25. So far as 4th petitioner Sudhakar Pandey; 7th petitioner Rajeshwar Dubey and 8th petitioner Harihar Choubey (of C.W.J.C. No. 834/99) are concenred, they were engaged by the Principal of the College during the period he was delegated with power i.e. between 28th June, 1977 and 28th June, 1979. Thereby, the respondents cannot assail their appointment as void. However, the rest of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 834/99, who were also appointed by the Principal of the College subject to approval of the University and State Government cannot put forward such claims. 26. It will be evident that the Bihar University had knowledge of appointment of all these petitioners. The Vice Chancellor also accepted that the non teaching employees appointed by the Principal, Goaplganj College were so appointed after local advertisement with the help of Selection Committee between August, 1977 and June, 1983 within staffing pattern, as evident from letter of Bihar University dated 12th August, 1984 (Annexure-1/l). By the said letter, the Bihar University intimated the Principal that payment of salary to such employees in the prescribed scale is possible only after approval of the State Government and receipt of grant for that purpose. Thus, it can be derived that the Bihar University approved those appointments having made on the basis of local advertisement with the help of a Selection Committee between August, 1977 and June, 1983, but did not release the payment in regular scale of pay because of non receipt of grant from the State. 27. In both the cases, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are working against sanctioned/deemed sanctioned post within staffing pattern and they were engaged because of exigency of work, the College being in need of more hands. 28. 27. In both the cases, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are working against sanctioned/deemed sanctioned post within staffing pattern and they were engaged because of exigency of work, the College being in need of more hands. 28. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment referred by the counsel for the University in the case of Ranjeet Kumar Singh (Supra); Chandra Ketu Singh (Supra) and Smt. Madhumati Sinha (Supra) cannot be made applicable in the cases of the petitioners, they having appointed after local advertisement; interview and on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. 29. Normally, appointments are made from two sources, one by direct recruitment from outsiders and the other by promotion. However, the competent authority has power to prescribe other source of appointment like, appointment by regularisation; absorption; deputation and by transfer. In all cases of such appointment from one or other source, the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is required to be complied. Persons similarly situated their cases are to be considered at the time of such appointment, after selection in accordance with law/guideline. 30. When the appointment is made from amongst outsiders, it is commonly known as direct recruitment. Source being from outsiders to give equal opportunity, an advertisement is required to be published and a selection procedure to be followed. However, in the case of promotion, no such advertisement required to be published, the source being limited to those who are already in the cadre. In cases, where appointments are made by way of stop gap arrangement, without following a procedure of regular appointment, for their regular appointment it is always open to the competent authority to frame scheme to make appointment out of limited source of employees working by way of ad hoc arrangement, which is generally known as "regularisation of service". For such appointment/regularisation, only the cases of all eligible similarly situated persons are to be considered following selection, which is in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For such regularisation of service, no advertisement required to be published in the newspaper except to give opportunity to similarly situated eligible employees. 31. In the cases of University employees, appointed without following total procedure of regular appointment, the State of Bihar has already framed a scheme for regularisation of their services/absorption vide resolution dated 10th May, 1991. For such regularisation of service, no advertisement required to be published in the newspaper except to give opportunity to similarly situated eligible employees. 31. In the cases of University employees, appointed without following total procedure of regular appointment, the State of Bihar has already framed a scheme for regularisation of their services/absorption vide resolution dated 10th May, 1991. The petitioners having engaged prior to 10th May, 1986, in the exigency of work, they have a right to be considered for regularisation of their services/absorption against the post sanctioned/deemed to be sanctioned under the staffing pattern. 32. The petitioners having appointed after local advertisement; on the recommendation of a Selection Committee; having worked for more than 18 to 23 years; the University having knowledge of the same for last more than 15 years, now it is not open to them to raise the petition of legality and propriety of their initial engagement, for the purpose of consideration of their cases for regular appointment by way of regularisation/absorption. 33. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons for regularisation of their services/absorption i.e. for regular appointment, against the post they are performing duties and decision be taken and communicated to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 34. If the services of one or other petitioner is regularised/absorbed/appointed on regular basis, the respondents will be liable to pay their salary within three months thereof. 35. Both the writ petitions are allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.