JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29 July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ petition was directed against the order dated 2nd July, 2008 passed by Advocate General, by which the selections on Class-IV posts made in the year, 2005 have been cancelled. Facts in brief for deciding this special appeal are as follows : In the year 2005 appointment on vacant class IV posts in the office of Advocate General at U.P. and in the office of Government Advocate at Allahabad were made in the year 2005. Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006; Vivek Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, was filed before this Court questioning the said selections. In the writ petition a statement was made by the learned Advocate General that in view of the discrepancies noticed in selections, a decision has been taken to cancel the selections held for Class-IV posts in the office of Advocate General as well as of Government Advocate and suitable orders for cancelling the selections shall be passed within week. In view of the aforesaid statement, the Court disposed of the writ petition after recording the statement of Additional Advocate General. 2. On 10.4.2006 the Advocate General is stated to have passed the order cancelling the selections so made. Another writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 24620 of 2006; Km. Hemlata and others v. State of U.P. and others, was decided vide judgment and order dated 31.5.2007, whereby the order dated 10.4.2006, terminating the services of the selected candidates, was set aside only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. However, liberty was given to learned Advocate General to examine the matter and to take fresh decision. 3. In view of the liberty given under the order dated 31st May, 2007, the learned Advocate General re-examined the matter and by means of the order dated 2nd July, 2007 took a view that entire selections deserve to be cancelled since the selections had been made without any advertisement being published in any newspaper. 4. The said order was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 37188 of 2008 by the appellant. 4. The said order was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 37188 of 2008 by the appellant. Learned Single Judge by means of the impugned judgment and order has dismissed the writ petition after recording that any appointment on a post in public office without advertisement being published in newspaper would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that earlier also when the issue of selection was raised in earlier writ petitions, no such objection qua advertisement was raised. It was only in the order dated 2nd July, 2007 such an objection has been raised for the first time. The same office of Advocate General had earlier defended the selections made. Respondents cannot now be permitted to turn around and assert that the selections were illegal for want of advertisement. Details of number of persons who actually applied for the post have also been referred to for contending that selections were fair. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel. 7. In the order of the learned Single Judge as well as in the order of the Advocate General dated 2/3.7.2007 it has been specifically recorded that no advertisement was published in any newspaper qua the posts in question and that selections were made on the basis of notice, which was pasted on the notice board of the office concerned. 8. The selections on Class-IV posts were in the office of Advocate General and Government Advocate are against the posts which were sanctioned by the State Government, salary whereof is paid through public exchequer, and are in the nature of public employment. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has reiterated that selection on any public post must be held after due publication of advertisement in newspaper so that eligible candidates have an opportunity to participate in the selection. 10. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that adherence to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is a must in the process of public employment and an employee who has been appointed without following the procedure prescribed by law, is not entitled for any relief, whatsoever, including the salary. 11. 11. In Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela and others, AIR 2006 SC 1165 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a Body of Experts, and any appointment made without following the procedure, would be in violation of the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. There being a categorical finding that the entire selections were conducted without there being any advertisement in the newspaper, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management and others, 1994(2) ESC 345 (FB), has held that notice of the vacancy on the notice board is no advertisement in the eyes of law. 13. We are of the view that for holding selection against a public post, it is but necessary to publish an advertisement in the newspaper so that all eligible candidates may participate. Non-publication of the advertisement in newspaper is a denial of equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates qua participation in the selection and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India rendering the selections a nullity. 14. In our considered opinion, it would be a sad day for a democratic country like India, which is to be governed by rule of law, if appointments on various posts in the office of the Advocate General, who is a Constitutional functionary (reference Article 165 of the Constitution of India), are permitted to be made through a notice published on the notice board only, whereby Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are given a go by. Advocate General has to advise the State on legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. Reference Article 165(2). Reference Article 165(2). The responsibility upon the holder of such an office, to ensure that constitutional rights conferred by Articles 14 and 16 are not infringed qua appointments under his authority, is therefore more stringent. 15. Notice published on the notice board of the office has the consequence creating a situation where only candidates close to the office goers or their well wishers are made aware of the vacancies to the exclusion of other eligible candidates. Thus a situation is created whereby the field of consideration is restricted to chosen few only. 16. We record that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition vide his order dated 29.7.2008. Any interference in the matter would have only perpetuated an illegality. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ————