JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No.5522 of 2014 1. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 14 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5522 of 2014 is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.348 of 2014 4. This Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for its final disposal by the consent of the advocates appearing for Appellant as well as respondents. 5. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.5954 of 2012 dated 31st July, 2014 whereby the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and the prayer for her regularization has not been accepted by this Court and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that this appellant is working since last approximately 20 years as daily wager in the respondents Bank. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the respondents-Bank had given appointment upon a vacant sanctioned post and her case has not been considered for regularization. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the fact of the case is covered in paragraph 53 of the State of Karnataka Vs Umadebi's case [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] and in view of the aforesaid decision, the scheme should have been floated by the respondents for regularization of this appellant. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that one Interlocutory Application has been preferred in which it has been stated that now the respondents have issued a letter to the effect that the appellant and the other petitioners in the writ petition are now stopped from performing their duties. Scheme has been floated by the respondents-State by office order No.1348 dated 13th February, 2014. This is to the effect that there will be regularization of some of the employees as stated in the scheme. The said scheme is at Annexure 27 of the Interlocutory Application. On the basis of this, the services of the appellant should have been regularized. Scheme has been floated by the respondents-State by office order No.1348 dated 13th February, 2014. This is to the effect that there will be regularization of some of the employees as stated in the scheme. The said scheme is at Annexure 27 of the Interlocutory Application. On the basis of this, the services of the appellant should have been regularized. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.5954 of 2012 dated 31st July, 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Counsel for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and other writ petitioners. This appellant is a back-door entry employee. Her appointment is illegal in nature. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Managing Director cannot appoint this type of appellant in the services of the respondents without any public advertisement in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Public at large must be given an opportunity to compete with each other for the public posts. Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the case of State of Bihar v. Chandreshwar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is submitted that if the public advertisement has not been given for public posts and if the petitioners or the appellant is appointed, such appointment cannot be regularized by the Court, much less in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any relief as stated in this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) This appellant was appointed as a daily wager in the respondents-Bank as Bank Assistant, without any public advertisement. (ii) The respondents-Bank ought to have issued public advertisement for the public post, so that the public at large can avail the opportunity for appointment. (ii) The respondents-Bank ought to have issued public advertisement for the public post, so that the public at large can avail the opportunity for appointment. (iii) It appears from the facts of the case that this appellant preferred application and the Managing Director appointed this appellant without giving any opportunity to others. (iv) Such type of appointment is known as “back-door entry”. This is not permissible in the eyes of law. These are illegal appointments. Such appointment cannot be regularized. (v) It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant has continued for long time. This does not give any statutory right to this appellant to be appointed on the said post. (vi) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Bihar v. Chandreshwar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under: - “10. The order of appointment, in the present case, is as follows: “In the light of the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna, vide his Letter No. 6/86 F3 Shri Chandeshwar Pathak, s/o Shri Devnarayam Pathak of Village Haraji, PO Haraji, PS Dimbara, District Chhapra was appointed as Constable temporarily from 14-1-1988 afternoon on the condition that his previous character found satisfactory and as and when necessary, his service shall be terminated without assigning any reason or show cause. His pay scale shall be Rs 425-10,565 EB-10-605 with the basic pay of Rs 425. He has been allotted CT No. 390.” It is clear from the above order that the appointment has been given only on the asking of the Inspector General of Police. There is nothing to show that any advertisement was issued giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to compete or any selection process was undertaken before appointment of the respondent. 11. In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, it was observed as under: “Appointment/employment without advertisement 35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from employment exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from employment exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from employment exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in radio and television as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said article of the Constitution. (Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Excise Supt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, Deptt. Of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb, State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and State of M.P. v. Mohd. Abrahim). 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the notice board, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit.” 12. No contrary view of this Court has been cited on behalf of the respondent. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit.” 12. No contrary view of this Court has been cited on behalf of the respondent. Moreover, another Division Bench of the same High Court has upheld termination in similar matter as noted earlier against which SLP has been dismissed by this Court as mentioned earlier. 13. Accordingly, it has to be held that in the absence of any advertisement or selection process, the appointment of the respondent is not protected and could be validly terminated. The learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition while the Division Bench erred in interfering with the same.” (Emphasis supplied) (vii) In view of the aforesaid decision, the services of this appellant cannot be regularized. (viii) Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that her appointment was not illegal but the same was irregular. This contention is also not accepted by this Court looking to the fact that only upon a representation, she was appointed without any public advertisement by the Managing Director. These contentions have already been raised in paragraphs 14, 18, 20 and 21 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. (ix) Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadebi's case as well as on the decision rendered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.5924 of 2003 dated 31st July, 2014. Looking to the facts of the present case that without any public advertisement she was appointed just upon a representation made by this appellant by the Managing Director without giving any opportunity to others, these facts make the present case different from the facts of the aforesaid decision. It further appears that as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision rendered in (2014) 13 SCC 232 , the services of the appellant cannot be regularized. (x) Learned counsel has also relied upon a scheme floated by the respondents dated 13th February, 2015. It appears that this point was never canvassed before the learned Single Judge. (x) Learned counsel has also relied upon a scheme floated by the respondents dated 13th February, 2015. It appears that this point was never canvassed before the learned Single Judge. Moreover, the scheme is meant for irregular appointment, whereas, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appointment of this appellant was illegal. The same was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All 'back-door entry employees, who are in the employment of the “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are illegal appointment. Back-door entry employees should go out by the same entry. It has become fashion in this country that those who are adorning the high-administrative posts, they are offering such type of back-door appointments which are, in fact, illegal appointments. Public posts ought to be advertised. These type of practice must be brought to an end without showing any leniency to the back-door entrants, so that immediately such type of appointment may be brought to an end, otherwise, slightest sympathy to the back-door entry employees will encourage to those who are adorning the high administrative positions to appoint more back-door entrants. Thus, whenever there is any appointment on a public post without any public advertisement, those services can be terminated by the “State”, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Sympathy beyond the law is a cruelty to others. Others will also encourage such type of application and they will also get employment at the cost of others. In fact, salary of “back-door” employees should have been recovered from those who have appointed these type of back-door entrants and if those who have retired, from their pension such type of recovery should be made, otherwise, these types of illegal sympathy will continue for a much longer period both in appointment as well as in regularization. Display of such sympathy leads to many vices. In fact, those who are appointed as a back-door entry, they should go out by the same entry. 9. As a cumulative effects of the aforesaid facts and reasons and the judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding W.P. (S) No. 5954 of 2012 dated 31st July, 2014. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed accordingly. 9. As a cumulative effects of the aforesaid facts and reasons and the judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding W.P. (S) No. 5954 of 2012 dated 31st July, 2014. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed accordingly. I.A. No.4748 of 2015 This Interlocutory Application is disposed of in view of the final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal.