JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In CWJC No. 7859 of 1997, the writ petitioners who are 14 in number have prayed for quashing the Office Order as contained in memo No. 892 dated 28.6.1997 issued under the signature of Director, Secondary Education-cum-Joint Secretary whereby the appointment of the petitioners purported to have been cancelled on the ground that all these appointments were illegal. 2. In WPS No. 3867 of 2002. five petitioners out of 14 have also moved this Court against the decision of the respondents whereby payment of their salary have been stopped. 3. So far CWJC No. 7859 of 1997 is concerned, petitioners case is that pursuant to request of the headmaster of the schools advertisement was made for appointment on the post of clerk and pursuant to that advertisement petitioners submitted their applications and they were called for interview on 15,4.1988. Copies of the advertisement and the interview letters have been annexed as Annexure 1 and 2 series to the writ petition. After interview petitioners said to have been selected and appointment letters were issued to them vide Annexure 3 to the writ application, which is dated 3.6.1988. Petitioners further case is that the Selection Committee thereafter considering the performance of the petitioners resolved to regularize their services and Office Order to that effect was Issued vide memo No. 1497 dated 22.3.1991. Petitioners alleged to have Joined their respective posts and continuously worked but payment of their salary have been stopped since 1990. Thereafter, all of a sudden the impugned letter was issued by the Director to the Regional Deputy Director for termination of services of the petitioners on the ground of illegal appointment having been made by the District Education Officer. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that petitioners were illegally appointed without following the rules and without any interview having been conducted, by the Selection Committee and without preparation of panel of selected candidates and following the roaster. Respondents case is that all these appointment were irregular as there cannot be ad hoc appointments. As a matter of fact, these appointments have been made by one Sri B. Kerketta, District Education Officer who was subsequently suspended and disciplinary proceeding was started against him. 5. Mr. Respondents case is that all these appointment were irregular as there cannot be ad hoc appointments. As a matter of fact, these appointments have been made by one Sri B. Kerketta, District Education Officer who was subsequently suspended and disciplinary proceeding was started against him. 5. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioners drawn my attention to Annexure 1 which is an advertisement issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment on the post of clerk. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were interviewed by the Selection Committee and letters of appointment were issued which is evident from Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ application. Learned counsel further submitted that inquiry was conducted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, who in his report categorically stated that appointments were made following the recruitment rules. Learned counsel further submitted that when the appointments of the petitioners were made by Selection Committee constituted as per the Rules then their appointment cannot be said to be illegal. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mehta v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1998 (2) PLJR 19, in the case of Shikshakatar Karmchari Sangh v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1998) 1 PLJR 723. 6. On the other hand, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Government Pleader No. IV at the very outset submitted that Sri B. Kerketta, the then District Education Officer illegally made appointments of several persons including the petitioners without getting approval of the Government and without following the Recruitment Rules and the Procedure. Many of these illegal appointments have been either set aside or cancelled and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the said District Education Officer. In support of her contention that the appointment was illegal, learned counsel drawn my attention to Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application. Learned counsel submitted that the advertisement (Annexure-1) was issued in 1987 giving reference to the Notification No. 398 dated 9.6.1983 regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel submitted that the Selection Committee is constituted every time for every appointment and the very fact that the said advertisement was issued under the signature of District Education Officer shows that he issued the advertisement of his own. Learned counsel submitted that the Selection Committee is constituted every time for every appointment and the very fact that the said advertisement was issued under the signature of District Education Officer shows that he issued the advertisement of his own. Learned counsel also drawn my attention to Annexure 2 which is interview letter which will show that the said District Education Officer called the candidates in his office with certificates for interview. There is no mention of Selection Committee or any Interview Committee. Learned counsel also drawn my attention to Annexure-4 which is the letter written by the said District Education Officer to the Director Secondary Education informing him that two candidates submitted their applications for appointment and their selection is under consideration. Learned counsel therefore contended that on the face of it the appointment of the petitioners is illegal and therefore respondents have rightly stopped the payment of salary and took a decision to cancel their appointments. In this connection learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 962 , in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (1997) 2 SCC 1 , in the case of R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) SLR 94. 7. On consideration of the facts of the case and on perusal of the documents, I find much force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader No. IV that the advertisement was made, interview letters, appointment letters were issued under the signature of District Education Officer and there is no mention that any interview was conducted by the Selection Committee or any panel was prepared and roaster clearance was obtained. In the letter of appointment it was mentioned that in anticipation of approval by the Director, Secondary Education appointments are made for three months, which can be terminated without any notice. It appears that when these appointments came to the notice of the Government, payment of salary was immediately stopped since 1990. It appears that Secretary-cum-Commissioner Department of Education made a thorough inquiry and it was held that all appointments made by Sri B. Kerketta was illegal and they are liable to be terminated from their service. Copy of the full report and the order of the Commissioner has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter- affidavit. 8. It appears that Secretary-cum-Commissioner Department of Education made a thorough inquiry and it was held that all appointments made by Sri B. Kerketta was illegal and they are liable to be terminated from their service. Copy of the full report and the order of the Commissioner has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter- affidavit. 8. It is well settled that all appointment in government service must be made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the Procedure prescribed therein. If the appointments are to be made by open advertisement followed by constitution of Selection Committee for the purpose of interview and selection of candidates then requirement to Rules of selection through Selection Committee cannot be substituted by humane consideration. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (supra) as relied upon by the Government Pleader No. IV. 9. In the case of R.N. Nanjundappa, (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that if appointment itself is in fraction of Rules and/or if it is in violation of the Constitution of India then no right accrued to the appointees for their regularization. 10. In the case of Ashwanl Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (supra) their lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the initial appointment itself is illegal and unauthorized then question of regularizing the incumbent does not at all arise. 11. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner put reliance in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mehta v. State of Bihar and Ors., (supra) wherein single bench of the Patna High Court has held that if persons appointed after scrutiny of various posts and on the recommendation of the Selection Committee headed by the Civil Surgeon after obtaining approval of Director Health Services then termination of service after expiry of 6 years cannot be held to be justified. Similarly, In the case of Shiksha-katar Karamchari Sangh v. State of Bihar and Ors., (supra). Learned single Judge of the Patna High Court held that if appointments are made on daily wages basis on the post, which has already sanctioned by the Government, appointees cannot be deprived of their right to regular appointment. Similarly, In the case of Shiksha-katar Karamchari Sangh v. State of Bihar and Ors., (supra). Learned single Judge of the Patna High Court held that if appointments are made on daily wages basis on the post, which has already sanctioned by the Government, appointees cannot be deprived of their right to regular appointment. With due respect in view of the facts of the instant case and in the light of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, these decisions will not be of any help to the petitioners. 12. Having regard to the facts of the instant case, I have no doubt in my mind in holding that all these appointments was made by Mr. B. Kerketta, District Education Officer illegally and without following Recruitment Rules and the Procedure. Respondents have therefore rightly decided to cancel the appointments of these petitioners. I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the same. 13. So far WPS No. 3867/2002 is concerned wherein five petitioners have made grievance for non-payment of salary. It appears that these petitioners have been getting their salary pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 7859 of 1997. Since petitioners of WPS No. 3867 of 2002 were posted in the Project School, they were not paid salary on the ground of their illegal appointment and for non-allotment of fund. In that view of the matter since the appointment of all these petitioners have been declared illegal, they are not entitled to continue their services. However, petitioners will be entitled to get their arrears of salary and wages for the period they actually rendered their services to the respondents. 14. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed but with a direction to the respondents for payment of salary for the period they have already worked.