A.K. Goel, CJ.— 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge quashing appointments of the appellants made without following the due process of law. Noticing the factual matrix, learned Single Judge noted : "11. In the case before me, the pleaded case of the State respondents is that the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been appointed under direct recruitment quota. If that was so, the respondents were incumbent to publish the vacancies so that eligible candidates could have opted for the job. However, neither the vacancies were advertised nor any sort of selection process was adopted. In this way, the appointments of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 neither fulfils the conditions of absorption laid down in the case of Umadevi (supra) nor stands the judicial test of direct appointments due to inherent lack of transparency and fairness in the appointment of private respondents." It was, thus, held that public appointments could not be made without following the mandate of article 16 as held in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Bihar v. Upendra Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65 . We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. It has not been disputed that the appellants were given appointments without any advertisement or selection process. Once it is so, no ground has made out by the appellants for interfering with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.