JUDGEMENT 1. Learned counsel for the appellants is present. No one appeared on behalf of respondent yesterday and no one appears today also. The matter relates to the appointment and termination of the respondent as Statistical Assistant, a Class-III Post, in the Animal Husbandry Department by the Regional Director and his competence to make the appointment. 2. The respondent appears to have been initially engaged on aforesaid post as a daily wage for six months on 21.7.1988, which was regularized on 29.4.1989. 3. The judgment under appeal holds that in between 18.3.1980 and 21.2.1992, the Regional director of the Animal Husbandry was authorised to make appointment on Class-III posts. On that ground the order of termination dated 10.6.1999 has been set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies heavily on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2009 (5) SCC page 65 (STATE OF BIHAR versus UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS)to submit that the judgment under appeal is not sustainable. 5. We have gone through the pleadings in the writ application. There is no assertion of an advertisement issued inviting applications in response to which the respondent applied. He gave an application suo motu that he had learnt from confidential sources that the post of Statistical assistant was vacant and he may be favoured with appointment. He then came to be appointed on daily wage for six months on what is described as a sanctioned vacant post. If there was a regular sanctioned vacancy of Statistical Assistant, a Class-III post, there was no justification for making daily wage appointment against such a technical post of statistical Assistant and that to without an advertisement. He then came to be regularized on the ground that he possessed the education qualification for appointment on the post. 6. The Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1992 (4) SCC 99 (DELHI DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE employees UNION VERSUS DELHI administration DELHI AND OTHERS) has noticed how such appointments are made in the present manner where a foot hold is given to the employee first by clandestine time bound appointment which is then made a foundation for regularizing the service, and that such appointments are made and extended for considerations including money. 7. In the case of STATE OF BIHAR VERSUS upendra NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS which also relates to the Animal Husbandry Department, appointments were made by the Regional Director. 7. In the case of STATE OF BIHAR VERSUS upendra NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS which also relates to the Animal Husbandry Department, appointments were made by the Regional Director. The Supreme Court has adequately noticed that such appointments even for a period that jurisdiction may have vested in the Regional Director, as claimed were required to be made after open advertisement and merit selection. In absence of such procedure having been followed the appointments made are per se illegal. Such appointments were to be made not by the Regional Director alone, but by a committee constituted for the purpose consisting of the Regional director, Animal Husbandry Department as the chairman, Regional Joint Director, Animal husbandry, the Assistant Director, Animal husbandry as the Secretary and one Officer belonging to the Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe. This authority dated 4.7.1987 was the sine qua non by which large scale illegal appointments were made by the Regional Director without following any procedures or establishment/approval of such committee. 8. The judgment under appeal is therefore not sustainable. The present appeal stands fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR VERSUS UPENDRA narayan SINGH AND OTHERS. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeal stands allowed.