D.S. Thakur, J.— 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against judgment and order dt. 11th of Sept. 03, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner 2. It is, however, necessary to give the brief facts in the light of which the present controversy has arisen. 2.1. Respondent came to be appointed as Junior Assistant/Typist by District Development Commissioner, Baramulla's endorsement dt. 1st of June 88. Pursuant to the said endorsement, the respondent joined against the aforementioned post on the same date. After joining the service, the service book of the respondent was prepared under the signatures of Deputy Director, Planning and Statistics, Baramulla. 2.2. Subsequently, respondent was deputed to National Hydro-Electric Project Corporation, (NHPC), Uri, vide order dt. 1st of Nov'88, issued by the District Development Commissioner, Baramulla. With a view to enable the respondent to draw his salary from NHPC, the last pay drawn certificate (LPC) dt. 5th of Nov'88, was also issued to him. Respondent was finally repatriated from NHPC vide order No. 303 of 1998 dt. 15 of Jan'98. However, upon repatriation, the respondent was not permitted to rejoin in his parent department. 2.3. This led the respondent to file writ petition, SWP No. 667/98, in which art interim order was jessed which became the subject matter of challenge in LPA, which was dismissed by this court vide order dt. 18th of Nov'99. The aforementioned writ petition was, lateron, withdrawn by the respondent and a representation was filed by him before the appellant-State. The said representation having not been decided, the respondent filed another writ petition bearing SWP No. 3186/01. A learned Single Judge of this court vide order dt. 31st of Dec'01, disposed of the aforementioned writ petition on the assurance of the Government counsel that the case of the respondent would be considered and his representation decided within a period of three months. 2.4. It was pursuant to the order, referred to above, that the representation of the respondent was decided by the Director, Economics and Statistics, vide order dt. 14th of March'02, which forms the basis of the second round of litigation before the court, leading to filmy of writ petition, SWP No. 1542/02. 2.5. Order dt. 2.4. It was pursuant to the order, referred to above, that the representation of the respondent was decided by the Director, Economics and Statistics, vide order dt. 14th of March'02, which forms the basis of the second round of litigation before the court, leading to filmy of writ petition, SWP No. 1542/02. 2.5. Order dt. 14th of March'02, which was impugned in the writ petition (SWP No, 1542/02), rejected the representation of the respondent holding that the respondent was not an employee of Planning and Statistics Department; that the District Development Commissioner, Baramulla, was not an authority empowered to appoint the respondent as Junior Assistant/Typist in the Planning and Statistics Department; that the District Development Commissioner, Baramulla, exercised no administrative control over the Department of Planning and Statistics and that appointment against the post of Junior Assistant/Typist, could be made only after a due selection process by the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Recruitment Board, by advertising the post and inviting all eligible candidates to compete in the solution process. 2.6. By virtue of judgment and order impugned, the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition. It is this order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 3. Mrs Seerna Shehkhar, learned AAG, appearing for the appellant-State, has reiterated the grounds which are otherwise reflected in the order dt. 14th of March'02, passed by the Director, Economics & Statistics. Learned counsel urged that the respondent had failed to bring on record the order of his appointment dt. 1st of June'88, said to have been passed by the District Development Commissioner, Baramulla. She further urged that respondent was never deputed to NHPC, Uri, by the State Government or by the Director Economics & Statistics, Jammu & Kashmir. She stated that the respondent, infact, was simply relieved by the District Development Commissioner, Baramulla, and directed to report in the office of Chief Engineer, NHPC Uri Hydel Project. Learned counsel further urged that the respondent was not a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Economics & Statistical (Subordinate) Service and, thus, emphasized that no relief could be granted in his favour as was done by the learned Single Judge. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel further urged that the respondent was not a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Economics & Statistical (Subordinate) Service and, thus, emphasized that no relief could be granted in his favour as was done by the learned Single Judge. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The entire emphasis of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the State before us was that the authority who had passed the order of appointment of the respondent namely the 'District Development Commissioner, Baramulla' was not authorized to appoint the respondent in the department of Planning and Statistics, as the same was not under his administrative control. The factum regarding appointment of respondent as Junior Assistant/Typist is, however, not disputed. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the State suggesting that the respondent had failed to produce his order of appointment does not, in any manner, support and buttress the case of the State for denying the benefits as claimed by the respondent, in as much as, the issue regarding his appointment by virtue of endorsement/order of District Development Commissioner, Baramulla, was never in dispute as can be seen from order dt. 14th of March'02, passed by the Director Economic & Statistics, which was impugned in the writ petition. 7. The entire emphasis of the order dt. 14th of March'02, was on the issue of District Development Commissioner, not having the authority to appoint the respondent as Junior Assistant/Typist. 8. The other issue with regard to there being no order of deputation by the State Government or by the Director concerned, is not of much consequence to determine the present controversy. 9. The fact of the matter is that the respondent was relieved by the District Development Commissioner, Baramulla, pursuant to which, he worked in NHPC till he was repatriated by virtue of order dt. 15th of Jan'98. Not a whisper is made regarding the legality of order of deputation of the respondent to NHPC in the order dt. 14th of March'02. 10. 15th of Jan'98. Not a whisper is made regarding the legality of order of deputation of the respondent to NHPC in the order dt. 14th of March'02. 10. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case reported as Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and others, AIR 1998 SC 3261 , wherein it has been held that before coming to the conclusion regarding validity or legality of an appointment made by an authority and before the termination of an employee is ordered, it is necessary to enquire as to whether a particular appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Act etc., and before arriving at such a conclusion, an opportunity of being heard has to be provided to the concerned person. 11. In the aforementioned case, the order of termination of the aggrieved employee was set aside only for the reason that no notice was served upon him before passing order of termination of his service. While relying upon the aforementioned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that no such enquiry was ever held much less was any notice given to the respondent regarding the validity of his order of appointment or cancellation thereof. 12. In the instant case also, apart from the order of consideration dt. 14th of March'02, passed by the Director, Economics & Statistics, no regular enquiry has been held before declaring his appointment by the District Development Commissioner as illegal. 13. Disposal of the representation is, infact, no substitute to a regular enquiry. Till such time as the appointment of the respondent is intact, the rights of the respondent cannot be diluted by the disposal of his representation by the Director. No steps having been taken by the State to question or cancel the order of appointment of the respondent till date, the State cannot be permitted to deny, at this belated stage, the status of the respondent as its employee especially after its consistent conduct in issuing the initial order of appointment by the District Development Commissioner dt. 1st of June'88, order of deputation/relieving order passed by the aforesaid authority by which respondent was deputed to NHPC, and the action of appellants in issuing the Last Pay Certificate, which enabled the respondent to draw salary from NHPC. 14. 1st of June'88, order of deputation/relieving order passed by the aforesaid authority by which respondent was deputed to NHPC, and the action of appellants in issuing the Last Pay Certificate, which enabled the respondent to draw salary from NHPC. 14. Whether or not the District Development Commissioner, Baramulla, had the authority to engage or appoint the respondent as Junior Assistant/Typist, cannot work prejudice to the interest of the respondent at this belated stage after having served the State and NHPC for a considerably long period of time. 15. Even otherwise, no fraud or malafides have been alleged in the order dt. 14th of March'02, against the respondent or the District Development Commissioner or those at the helm of affairs who had permitted the respondent to join as Junior Assistant/Typist, nor any action taken or proposed against them. The respondent, for all purposes, bonafidely believed that he was validly appointed and had a legitimate expectation to be treated as a permanent member of the department of Planning and Statistics. 16. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and is dismissed along with connected CMA, with no order as to costs.