Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. This order shall dispose of L.R.A. No. 33/2002 and L.P.A. No. 540/2002. 2. L.P.A. No. 33/2002 arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 11701 of 2001 while L.P.A. No. 540/2002 arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 9024 of 2001. 3. C.W.J.C. No. 11701/2001 was filed by three petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were working as Basic Health workers while Petitioner No: 3 was working as Dresser. In C.W.J.C. No. 9024/2001, the petitioner was working on the post of Dresser. Each of the petitioners was working in some Government Ausdhalya. All the petitioners were removed under the orders of the Civil Surgeon on different dates. 4. Being aggrieved by their removal they have come to this Court inter alia submitting that they were working from before on fixed honorarium as Voluntary Health Workers but later on under the orders of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer on different dates they were appointed against their respective posts. According to the petitioners, the order showed that it was an order of Samvilyan (absorption). Two of the petitioners were appointed as Basic Health workers while the other two were appointed as Dressers. They worked continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 15 years. 5. It appears from the records that under the directions of the Divisional Commissioner some enquiry was made and it revealed that the appointments of the petitioners in the cadre of Basic Health worker/ Dresser was illegal. The enquiry also revealed that there was no cadre of Voluntary Health Worker and there were no provisions for appointment/regularisation of Voluntary Health Workers in the regular establishment. After coming to this conclusion, the authorities issued notices to show cause and after considering the same the orders of removal were passed. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners came to this Court in Writ Application referred to above. 6. The learned single judge after hearing the parties allowed each of the Writ Applications observing that the appointments/absorptions were illegal but the initial illegality would not cut much ice in the present matter because the appointees have worked for long many years, the learned single judge accordingly quashed the removal orders and directed the concerned authorities to reinstate the petitioners in service. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has filed these two separate Writ Applications. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has filed these two separate Writ Applications. 7. Learned Counsel for the state submitted that the petitioners were working as Voluntary Health Workers and they could not be appointed or absorbed as Basic Health workers/Dressers because neither there was a provision of law nor there was any rule authorising the Civil Surgeon or any other authority to issue such an order. He also submitted, placing reliance on certain judgments of the Supreme Court that if the basic appointment is illegal then such an illegality cannot be regularised. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the employees submitted that the petitioners did not obtain their appointments by playing any fraud or suppressing any fact and even if the Civil Surgeon was not competent to make the appointments then too their long stay in service should provide them some respite. Justifying the judgment of the learned single Judge it was contended that if the illegality was not detected immediately or within a short period then after a long lapse of 15 or 20 years, a person who is now well settled in the life should not be unsettled or disturbed. It was contended by him that question of interference in the writ jurisdiction is a question of discretion and once the discretion is exercised by the learned single judge then the L.P.A. Court but for compelling reasons should not interfere in the matter. 8. True it is that in a case where the appointments are irregular and the irregularity is allowed to perpetuate for long period than an appointee/employee can certainly say that as the appointment was irregular but was not violative of rules or policy and for no lapses on the part of the employee he was not regularised, his services should not be terminated. But the said principle is not of universal application. The word regularisation Presupposes that something which could be done legally has been done irregularly, therefore, the same should be regularised. Regularisation would be of an irregular act and not of an illegal act or an act which was patently beyond jurisdiction of the authority. 9. But the said principle is not of universal application. The word regularisation Presupposes that something which could be done legally has been done irregularly, therefore, the same should be regularised. Regularisation would be of an irregular act and not of an illegal act or an act which was patently beyond jurisdiction of the authority. 9. The Appellant-State has come to us clearly showing that the petitioners who were working as voluntary Health Workers on fixed honorarium could not be appointed against their respective posts by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer because neither the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief of Medical Officer was authorised to issue such orders nor there was a cadre of Voluntary Health workers and there was no provision for appointment/regularisation of voluntary Health workers in the regular establishment. 10. So far as appointment to the post of Basic Health worker/Dresser is concerned, it cannot be made at the drop of a hat or just for the sake of asking. Such appointments arc to be made in accordance with law after following the rules. A backdoor entry by regularisation of an illegal appointment may provide some solace to the appointee and the appointing authority but would not fit in the frame and four corners of law. In the present matter the respondents/ writ petitioners were unable to show us anything that there was some cadre of Voluntary Health Workers or such Health Workers, who were not on the regular scroll but were only getting the honorarium, could be regularised, appointed or absorbed in the regular services. 11. The Apex Court in the matter of Ashwini Kumar and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., ( AIR 1997 SC 1623 ), State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. V/s. Dharma Bir, ( (1998)6 SCC 165 ) and Subedar Singh and Ors. V/s. District judge, Mirazpur and Anr., (AIR 2002 SC 201) held that long continuation in service is not a ground to allow the person to remain in service when the initial engagement is in breach of the Constitutional mandate. 12. From the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court it would thus clearly appear that an illegal appointment at its inception cannot be legalised by lapse of time or, long stay of the incumbent in the office would not provide any legal foundation in his favour. What is illegal at the inception would not become legal by lapse of time. 12. From the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court it would thus clearly appear that an illegal appointment at its inception cannot be legalised by lapse of time or, long stay of the incumbent in the office would not provide any legal foundation in his favour. What is illegal at the inception would not become legal by lapse of time. When the law says that something is to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done accordingly or not at all. 13. True it is that interference in matter like present would be a question of direction of the Court and the discretion may or may not be affected by number of factors but the question still would be whether the High Court should interfere in a matter where the interference leads to revival of an illegal order. Appointment of the petitioners as Basic health Workers/Dressers was in the teeth of the appointment rules and if they were to be removed from services then such removal cannot be said to be bad. The question only would be that if the illegality is detected after a long time, should the Court close its eyes and allow the illegality to perpetuate ad-infinitum. 14. True it is that the petitioners worked for 15 years continuously but that stay of 15 years would not make their stay authoritsed when the initial entry itself wa unauthorised. The learned single Judge was pleased to observe that irregular appointment or the question of competence of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer to make appointment or there was no provision for making appointment/regularisation of Voluntary Health Workers could have carried weight in case the irregularity/invalidity was discovered within a reasonable period, say 5-6 years and steps were taken for their removal at that time. 15. We are in respectful disagreement with the said observations made by the learned single Judge. The question of irregularity and invalidity cannot be put on the same pedestal. What is invalid is irregular so also illegal, it cannot be justified in the teeth of the provisions of law nor can be justified on the anvil of the legal provisions. But something which is irregular would always not be illegal or invalid. The question of irregularity and invalidity cannot be put on the same pedestal. What is invalid is irregular so also illegal, it cannot be justified in the teeth of the provisions of law nor can be justified on the anvil of the legal provisions. But something which is irregular would always not be illegal or invalid. An authority who has powers to do something in a particular manner short-circuiting the procedure/ process does something without imposing anything further then the act of such authority would be irregular. The irregularity can be cured by regularisation or the act and even by post facto sanction. When an illegality is unearthed then the only question of its examination would arise. Can we say that what remained buried for long many years, after it is dug out from the grave should be accepted to be legal though it was basically illegal, invalid and opposed to the public policy? The answer in humble opinion cannot be in affirmative. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Roshni Devi and Ors. V/s. State of Haryana, ( 1998 (8) SCC 59 ). In this case it was submitted before the Supreme Court that the earlier judgment of the High Court, which was not challenged earlier was incapable of being implemented, the Supreme Court deprecated the said practice. On an earlier occasion in the matter of Sudesh Kumari, the High Court recorded a finding that the last candidate appointed out of the list prepared on 15-10-1989 was at SI. No. 4645 and therefore, directed the Respondent-State to appoint all those, who were higher in merit. The State Government did not challenge validity of the decision in the matter of Sudesh Kumari. Thereafter in another writ application the validity of the list dated 15-10-1989 was challenged and the Full Bench of the High Court issued certain directions which had the effect of virtually abrogating the reliefs given in the case of Sudesh Kumari and annulling the appointments made pursuant to that. Persons who were adversely affected by the Full Bench directions came before the Supreme Court, the Respondent-State which had not earlier challenged the validity of Sudesh Kumaris judgment this time sought to challenge the validity of the said judgment. Persons who were adversely affected by the Full Bench directions came before the Supreme Court, the Respondent-State which had not earlier challenged the validity of Sudesh Kumaris judgment this time sought to challenge the validity of the said judgment. The Supreme Court found that in the meanwhile the persons benefited by the judgment of Sudesh Kumari were in service for more than nine years. In these circumstances the Supreme Court observed that the equity could be invoked in favour of those persons and their appointments could not be annulled or terminated after a long lapse of nine years. That was a judgment on peculiar facts and by no stretch of imagination it could be argued that the judgment is of universal application. 17. The Supreme Court in the above referred judgments have already observed that the persons who have been appointed illegally or by an authority who had no jurisdiction would have no right to continue in the office. 18. It appears that the Health Department is having an unhealthy environment which is causing health menace not only to the Department but even to the State Government. We should rather say that the illegalities are like cancerous growth and the Department of Health is suffering with it. 19. In cases of illegal appointments, there is no room for misplaced sympathy. If there was no cadre nor there was any rule for the absorption/appointment of the Voluntary Health Workers in the regular establishment then an illegal appointment would not create any right in their favour. Regularisation is simply to bidge the gap but cannot be used to fill the void. What is illegal would always remain and continue to be illegal, what is without jurisdiction cannot at all be regularised. 20. Being in respectful disagreement with the learned Single Judge, we are unable to hold that the writ petitioners are entitled to any relief. 21. Both the Appeals are allowed. The judgments of the learned single judge in each of the case is set aside. Each of the Writ applications is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.