Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. :— Heard Sri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner Sri A.K. Gupta,learned counsel for respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the instant case has been initially appointed on the post of Naib Moharirs by an order dated 22.02.1992 (Anneuxre No. 1) in the Nagar Palika Parishad Nagar Vikas Samiti/Town Area Society, Hardoi under Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Madhoganj, Hardoi. While the petitioner was working and discharging his duties, his services were orally terminated by means of order dated 01.09.1994 passed by SD, Bilgram, Hardoi. Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3337 (SS) of 1995, finally disposed of vide order dated 01.04.1997, the said order on reproduction reads as under:- "Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents. The respondent No. 4 is directed to pay the salary for the petitioner if he is still working within a period of two months from the date, the petitioner may make a representation along with a copy of this order with a period of two weeks from today. With the observations the matter is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs." Aggrieved by the said order, the official respondent i.e. Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Madhoganj, Hardoi filed a review petition (Review Petition No. 92 of 1997, Chairman, Nagar Vikas Samitiy, Madhoganj, Hardoi Vs. Mahendra Kumar Saini and others), pending before this Court. In the meantime, the services of the petitioner were again orally terminated w.e.f. 18.10.2001. In view of the abovesaid facts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing present writ petition with the following main prayer:- i)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the oral termination order of the petitioner form the post of Naib Moharir, passed by opposite party No. 3. In view of the abovesaid facts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing present writ petition with the following main prayer:- i)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the oral termination order of the petitioner form the post of Naib Moharir, passed by opposite party No. 3. ii)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue to discharge his duties as Naib Moharir and pay him his salary and allowances each and every month as and when the same falls due." After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, it is clearly established that initially when the petitioner was appointed on the post in question , no advertisement has been made thereby inviting applications by official respondents to appoint the candidate on the post of Naib Moharirs and by adopting pick and choose method petitioner has been appointed on the post in question hence his entry on the post in question by side door should be discouraged and illegal and they have no right to continue on the said post.(See State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others( 2009) 5 SCC 65, Union of India and another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and another, (2010) 2 SCC 422 and Bhakra Beas management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij and another , (2010) 8 SCC 701 ). As stated hereinabove that no procedure whatsoever has been followed while appointing the petitioner on the post in question, so keeping in view the said facts and also the law as laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others [ 2006 (4) SCC 1 ] Hon'ble the Apex court after placing reliance on the earlier judgment given in the case of S.V. Narayanappa vs. State of Mysore (1967) 1 SCR 128 , and B.N. Nanjudappa vs. T. Thimmiah (1972)1 SCC 409 , held as follows:- " Para No. 15 - If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment." "Para No. 16 - We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization." Further, in paragraph 53 in Umadevi's case, Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:- "One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten yeas or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles, settled by this Court in cases above-referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover or orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others 2009(5) SCC 65 has held as under:- "that any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement, inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible persons get a fair chance to compete is in violation of guarantee enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ad hoc/temporary/daily wage employees are not entitled to claim regularisation in service as a matter of right. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order." Sri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the action on the part of respondent thereby terminating the services of the petitioner orally in spite of the fact that the review petition filed by the official respondent/ Chairman, Nagar Vikas Samitiy, Madhoganj, Hardoi against the order dated 01.04.1993 is pending, is an action which is wholly contrary to law and on the said score the impugned action on the part of respondent thereby terminating the services of the petitioner orally w.e.f. 18.10.2001 is an action which is wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature and also in contravention to the order 01.04.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 3337 (SS) of 1995, thus, liable to be set aside. The said argument made by the learned counsel for petitioner in view of the facts state hereinabove and taking into consideration the law as laid down by Hon'ble the the Supreme Court in the Case of Uma Devi (supra) and in the case of Gulam Rasool Lone Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in JT 2009(13) SC 422, is wholly incorrect, thus, rejected, the relevant portion of the judgment passed by Hon'ble in the case of Gulam Rasool Lone (Supra) in para Nos. 11 and 2 are being quoted hereinbelow:- "11. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in JT 2009(13) SC 422, is wholly incorrect, thus, rejected, the relevant portion of the judgment passed by Hon'ble in the case of Gulam Rasool Lone (Supra) in para Nos. 11 and 2 are being quoted hereinbelow:- "11. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that keeping in view the equal protection clause contained in Articles 14 of the Constitution of India as also Article 16 thereof, all the employees should be treated equally. Equality clause however, must be enforced in legality and not illegality. 12. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that Article 14 is a positive concept. The Constitution does not envisage enforcement of the equality clause where a person has got an undue benefit by reason of an illegal act." For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Further, as prayed, the period for which the petitioner has worked and discharged the duties and if the allowance has not been paid to him, he is permitted to make a fresh representation in this regard to Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Madhoganj, Hardoi/O.P. No. 3 within a period of two weeks from today annexing all the relevant documents and materials in support of his case and after receiving the same, O.P. No. 3 shall consider and decide in accordance with law withing a further period of four weeks. No order as to costs. ____________