ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 1, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that only for procedural wrong the petitioner has been terminated. It is also submitted that the post, on which the petitioner was working, is vacant and since the petitioner has continued in service for a longer period, he should be allowed to function. 4. It appears that pursuant to direction of this Court in CWJC No. 1386 of 2004 the matter was again reconsidered by the authorities and finding the appointment of the petitioner ab initio void he was terminated from services after affording opportunity of hearing. The petitioner had appeared in person and had put forth his defence. 5. It appears that the petitioner was appointed contrary to the procedures laid down in law and that also by an authority not competent to appoint. 6. The order impugned, in that view of the matter, in my opinion, does not require any interference. 7. While passing the order of termination, the Director, Department of Welfare, also recommended for disciplinary action against Sri Munni Paswan, the then Deputy Director, Welfare, who had appointed the petitioner. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 9. This application is accordingly, dismissed. 10. Parting with this order, I would like to observe that in case, the posts of clerks are vacant in the Welfare Department, the same should be filled up after due advertisement and in case, the petitioner also applies, he should be considered and the benefits permissible in law, 'as he is handicapped, shall be given to him.