Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The order, as contained in annexure 1, issued vide memo no. 659 dated 26.5.2000, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated from the post of peon. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of order, as contained in annexure 2 dated 7.11.1991 the petitioner was appointed in Rajakiya Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Ara, Bhojpur on the post of peon by the Assistant Director (Sanskrit), Bihar, Patna and he continued in services till passing of the order, as contained in annexure 1 in 2000. It is further submitted that since the petitioner continued in services for about nine years he could not have been terminated without proper inquiry. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf the State enumerating therein that the petitioner was appointed by a process unknown to law, inasmuch that neither the post was advertised nor it was circulated by issuing notice in the office, and, therefore, the authorities after issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner and considering his claim terminated him. 5. On own showing of the petitioner, it would appear that the petitioner was appointed without any advertisement or a notice in the office showing the vacancies. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not informing this Court as to how the petitioner got information about the vacancy and in what manner he was appointed by the Assistant Director (Sanskrit). 6. A public office, if falls vacant, must be filled up through public advertisement and in accordance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. It appears that the petitioner was appointed de hors the mandate of law, and, therefore, his appointment is held ab initio void. 8. It appears from annexure 1 that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice and was directed to produce document in support of his claim and the petitioner did so and the authorities on the basis of the same not being satisfied terminated his services holding that his appointment was ab initio void. 9. In this view of the matter, there was no necessity to hold proper inquiry in the matter, as the appointment of the petitioner was ab initio void. 10. 9. In this view of the matter, there was no necessity to hold proper inquiry in the matter, as the appointment of the petitioner was ab initio void. 10. Mere continuance of the petitioner in service for about nine years will not confer any right on him nor he can be allowed to urge the question of equity, as his appointment has been held ab initio void. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in this writ application. 12. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. However, there will be no recovery from the petitioner for the period he has actually worked under the respondents.