Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This is a second Letters Patent Appeal. The earlier one (L.P.A. no. 1031 of 2002) had been withdrawn as the petitioner-appellant had desired a review of the order which had been challenged. The order on the writ petition is dated 28.8.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 9631 of 2002. 3. The petitioner-appellant had been appointed as a Tailor-Constable but when the matter was sent for approval of the Director General of Police, the latter declined to accord his approval on the appointment and thus the service of. the petitioner-appellant stood terminated. 4. Instead of repeating the facts it would be best to reproduce two paragraphs of the impugned order: "From the proceeding of the Selection Committee (Annexure-2A) it seems that the procedure unknown to law was followed in recommending the appointment of the petitioner. The Police Head Quarter wrote for appointment of the petitioner and in light thereof a Selection Committee was constituted. The Selection Committee recommended for appointment of the petitioner without considering the case of other eligible candidates. While recommending for appointment of the petitioner although the Selection Committee sought for the approval of the Police Head Quarter but without waiting for its approval, the petitioner was appointed and sent for training. Ultimately the approval sought for from the Police Head Quarter was turned down and the service of the petitioner has been terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has been selected by duly constituted Selection Committee and was appointed as Tailor-Constable his service ought not to have been terminated without giving show cause to him. From the proceeding of the Selection Committee it is evident that case of the petitioner was recommended for appointment without considering the case of any other candidates. Further while recommending for appointment, approval of Police Head Quarter was sought and instead of waiting for the same, petitioner was appointed and sent for training. Appointment of the petitioner was subject to the approval of the Police Head Quarter, but the said approval has been declined." 5. The aspects have been sufficiently noticed in the impugned order. There were other eligible candidates. Appointment of the petitioner was subject to the approval of the Police Head Quarter, but the said approval has been declined." 5. The aspects have been sufficiently noticed in the impugned order. There were other eligible candidates. The learned Judge records the fact that the appointment had been granted and the petitioner-appellant had been sent for training without approval of the Police Head Quarter, is itself an illegality and the Court cannot certify such an appointment to be correct. In so far as other aspects are concerned that there were others and only the petitioner was considered, this in itself is also bad. 6. There is no merit in this appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed.