Order This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent State of Bihar against the judgment and order dated 30th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 4265 of 2006. 2. The matter at issue is the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner as a compounder under the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura in 1997 and termination of his service on 28th June 2002 on the premise that his appointment was bad and illegal. 3. Under order dated 21st November 1997 made by the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura, the writ petitioner came to be appointed as a compounder. The said appointment came under the scanner. After giving notice to show cause, under order dated 28th June 2002, the service of the writ petitioner came to be terminated. After a round of litigation before this Court in CWJC No. 9411 of 2003, the said order was challenged in departmental appeal. Under order dated 17th June 2005 made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger, the order of termination of service was upheld. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 4265 of 2006. 4. According to the petitioner, his appointment as compounder was made after following due procedure. The post was advertised on 12th November 1997. The petitioner was interviewed on 21st November 1997 and was appointed as compounder on 21st November 1997. He continued to serve continuously for five years. Thereafter, his service was terminated on the premise that his appointment was bad and illegal. 5. The petition was contested by the appellant State of Bihar. A counter affidavit was filed. According to the State Government, the posts of compounder and dresser being the technical posts, the posts were required to be filled in by the Health Department. Besides, at the relevant time no dispensary was constructed; neither a medical officer was appointed; nor there was a necessity of compounder, dresser, etc. The appointment of the writ petitioner and one another as dresser was illegal. The order of termination of service was, therefore, justified. 6. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge has held that in absence of recruitment rules or rules of procedure, the Superintendent of Police, being the head of the department, was justified in making the recruitment and appointment. The order of termination of service was, therefore, justified. 6. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge has held that in absence of recruitment rules or rules of procedure, the Superintendent of Police, being the head of the department, was justified in making the recruitment and appointment. Such recruitment or appointment cannot be held to be bad or illegal; nor was it a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction to make appointment. Consequently, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of termination of service and has issued direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity. Therefore, this Appeal. 7. Learned advocate Mrs. Nilu Agrawal has appeared for the appellant. Mrs. Agrawal has submitted that there being no dispensary or clinic or hospital for the Police District there was no need for appointment of compounder or dresser. The then Superintendent of Police acceded his jurisdiction in making the appointment of the petitioner as compounder and of one another as dresser. She has submitted that one Rajiv Ranjan was appointed as a dresser along with the writ petitioner. His service also came to be terminated in June 2002. The challenge to the said order before this Court in CWJC No. 3974 of 2003 had failed. For the same reason, the above Writ Petition also ought to have been dismissed. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Rajesh has appeared for the respondent-writ petitioner. He has contested the Appeal. He has produced the order of appointment made on 21st November 1997 for our perusal. He has vehemently submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was legal and valid. The petitioner having served for more than five years, his service ought not to have been terminated. If, at all, the appointment were illegal, the appointing authority also should have been dismissed from service. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Sudhanshu Shekhar Mullick { 2004 (1) PLJR 207 }. 9. We have perused the record. By no stretch of imagination, the memorandum dated 12th November 1997 can be said to be the advertisement. The said memorandum issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura only records that the Selection Board would meet on 21st November 1997 for selection for appointment to the post of compounder, dresser, nursing orderly, etc. 9. We have perused the record. By no stretch of imagination, the memorandum dated 12th November 1997 can be said to be the advertisement. The said memorandum issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura only records that the Selection Board would meet on 21st November 1997 for selection for appointment to the post of compounder, dresser, nursing orderly, etc. It had been further directed, “Wide publicity may be made in this regard.” However, there is nothing on the record to even remotely suggest that pursuant to the said memorandum, a public notice was issued; applications were received; applications were scrutinized; applicants were called for interview; interview was held and selection was made. On the contrary, the record suggests that on the same day, i.e. on 12th November 1997, Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura wrote to two officers of his office that they were the members of the Selection Board and that they had to attend the office on 12th November 1997 for appointment of tailor, cobbler, nursing orderly, compounder, daftary, dresser. The order of appointment was made on 21st November 1997 indicating that the appointment of the writ petitioner was made on the vacant post of compounder in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1540/- on ad hoc basis. 10. Mrs. Agrawal has fairly conceded that at the relevant time there were no rules for appointment of compounder, dresser, etc. under the Superintendent of Police; nor was there any procedure laid down. However, in the submission of Mrs. Agrawal, the post being purely technical, it was the Health Department which should have made the appointment. 11. In absence of any rule made or the instruction issued by the State Government in that regard, we may not be able to hold that the Superintendent of Police, being the head of the department, was not authorized to make any recruitment or suffered the inherent lack of authority to make appointment. Even if the Superintendent of Police were authorized to make selection and appointment, he was not absolved from the responsibility to make fair selection and appointment. As recorded hereinabove, the memorandum dated 12th November 1997 which is referred to as the advertisement is not at all an advertisement or a public notice. The manner in which the petitioner and others were appointed on 21st November 1997 was contrary to all canons of service jurisprudence and of fair play in public employment. As recorded hereinabove, the memorandum dated 12th November 1997 which is referred to as the advertisement is not at all an advertisement or a public notice. The manner in which the petitioner and others were appointed on 21st November 1997 was contrary to all canons of service jurisprudence and of fair play in public employment. Neither there was a public advertisement; nor had there been a mention of required qualifications, eligibility, etc. It is quite doubtful that such posts were at all created or, if created, were necessary. As it is stated in the counter affidavit and not controverted, no dispensary or clinic or hospital existed in the Police District; nor could there have been a requirement of a compounder or a dresser. The appointment of the writ petitioner was ex-facie illegal. Once illegality in appointment was noticed, such appointment could not have been continued. The impugned order of termination of service dated 28th June 2002 was made in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The said order, therefore, does not call for interference. 12. We do agree with the Bench of this Court that if an officer makes an illegal appointment, he is answerable and the State Government should proceed against such an officer. However, for termination of illegal appointment, the termination of service of the appointing authority cannot be a sine qua non or a condition precedent. An illegal appointment cannot be sustained in the guise that the officer making appointment has not been punished for his misdeed. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 4265 of 2006 is set aside. CWJC No. 4265 of 2006 is dismissed. 14. Interlocutory Application No. 7310 of 2011 stands disposed of.