JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh and Hemant Kumar Srivastava JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the state. 2. Assistant Director (Sericulture), Giridih appointed six persons on class-IV posts in the month of June, 1997 pursuant to an alleged local advertisement, a copy whereof is available on record as Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit in the writ petition. After inquiry and giving opportunity of show cause to the appointees, the services of those 6 appointees including the appellant/writ petitioner were terminated by a reasoned order dated 17.06.2000 (Annexure-5). That order was challenged by the appellant through a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 6236 of 2000 which has been dismissed by the order under appeal dated 25.01.2007. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the main submission advanced is to the effect that appointments were made on sanctioned posts after a local advertisement bearing No. 02 of 1996 and the Assistant Director is also competent to make appointment on class-IV posts. Therefore, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner/appellant is against law. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the state has submitted that the finding of the writ court requires no interference because not only the alleged advertisement was without obtaining permission of State Government or the head of the office namely, the Director, Handloom and Sericulture but the process was itself violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. We have carefully gone through the relevant facts and particularly, the local advertisement No. 2/96 which is on record of the writ case as Annexure-6 and also the reasoned order contained in Annexure-5 to the memorandum of present appeal. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the local advertisement was merely a camouflage for making illegal appointments of as many as 6 persons against class-IV posts. For meeting the requirements of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, the advertisement should have been in the newspapers so that other eligible persons could know of the vacancies and the selection process and could have applied. From the reasoned order terminating the service of 6 appointees, it is further clear that requisition was not sent even to the Employment Exchange. 6. From the reasoned order terminating the service of 6 appointees, it is further clear that requisition was not sent even to the Employment Exchange. 6. In view of aforesaid finding, we are not persuaded to go into the details of the submission as to whether the Assistant Director had legal competence to make the impugned appointments or not. 7. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations for granting appropriate age relaxation made by the writ court is in the interest of justice and that shall be kept in mind by the competent authority in case of appointments in future.