Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk by the Chief Executive Officer of the Special Area Development Authority, Harda by order dated 26-8-1988 (Annexure A ). In this order it is mentioned that the petitioner would be on probation for two years and his services can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. This probation period was extended by order dated 31-8-1990 (Annexure B) for a period of one year. His services were terminated by order dated 15-11-1990 (Annexure C) on the ground that he was appointed without following the prescribed procedure. ( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that he was appointed after regular interview and he was qualified for the post. According to him, his services have been terminated because he was appointed at the time when the Chairman of the SADA was a Congress worker and at the time of his termination this office came to be held by a person belong to another political party. ( 4. ) THE case of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed without following the prescribed procedure under the rules. It is pointed out that no advertisement was issued, the applications were not invited from the prospective candidates, the names were not called for the Employment Exchange and no selection committee was constituted. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted an application before Vishnu Rajoria who was a Minister and at his instance the petitioner was appointed on the instructions of Chairman of SADA. A copy of that application has been annexed with the return and that is Annexure R-B. It is further stated that the petitioner has passed B. A. in third division only. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard. None appeared for the respondents at the time of hearing of this petition. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the documents on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service. It is clear that the petitioner submitted an application before a Minister and not before any officer of the SADA. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the documents on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service. It is clear that the petitioner submitted an application before a Minister and not before any officer of the SADA. It is a fact that no advertisement was issued. Applications were not invited. Other candidates were not called. There was no written test. The petitioner alone was interviewed and appointed. It is obvious that the petitioner was appointed because of the political reasons and in the same way he has been given farewell. Therefore, the petitioner should have no cause to feel aggrieved. He came from the back door entry and, therefore, he cannot claim any relief from this Court. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Notified Area Council v. Bishnu C. Bhoi and Ors. , (2001) 10 SCC 636 , that if the appointment is made in an irregular and illegal manner, the High Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that case also the petitioner was appointed without following the process of selection provided by the rules. In Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 8 SCC 633 , also the Supreme Court has observed that arbitrariness being opposed to reasonableness is an antithesis to law. It has been emphasised that there should be fair play in action and that is the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 6. ) THE manner in which the petitioner was appointed is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was necessary for the appointing authority to invite applications so that the other candidates could have applied. It was further necessary to conduct proper test and interview. The petitioner alone was interviewed and he was appointed. Such an appointment does not deserve judicial protection. ( 7. ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the services of Banwari Lal Yadav were also terminated but he was subsequently appointed on daily wages. That is not a ground on which any relief can be granted to the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was tainted. Such an appointment does not deserve judicial protection. ( 7. ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the services of Banwari Lal Yadav were also terminated but he was subsequently appointed on daily wages. That is not a ground on which any relief can be granted to the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was tainted. As already stated the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the basis of such appointment letter. His services were terminated during the period of extended probation and the appointment order provides that the services can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. ( 8. ) THE petition is dismissed.