Judgment 1. A temptation had permitted the petitioner-appellant to file the writ petition and yet not satisfied he files the present letters patent appeal as if to take a chance at the High Court if luck will come his way to receive a little more. 2. The petitioner-appellant was appointed in 1966. He was later retrenched as his appointment was not found regular. Undaunted the petitioner-appellant managed such a state of affairs that in 1973 the Council of Ministers under special circumstances took a decision to appoint him as a Clerk and then he was given a job in the Irrigation Department. This alone speaks a lot that the petitioner-appellant must have had some backing that the Council of Ministers had to take a decision for his appointment. As years rolled by and 10 years passed, the petitioner-appellant received his time bound promotion and thereafter also retired. 3. In retirement the petitioner-appellant is unsatisfied that the period when he was appointed in 1966 and when his service was subsequently dispensed with should be reckoned so that he can get the benefit of additional or continuous service. 4. This court would be tempted to ask whether the Council of Ministers would have that much power to appoint the petitioner-appellant through the back door violating Article 16 of the Constitution of India. But the Court will simply ignore this aspect. The petitioner-appellant must also bide his peace as temptation some times can harm him and if the court were to look into this matter with more details on a certiorari then It may not be too savoury for the petitioner-appellant nor the Chief Minister whose Council of Ministers made an irregular appointment which the petitioner-appellant still chases. 5. There is no error in the order on the writ petition. 6. Dismissed.