MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J.:–The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:— "------ for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order issued vide Memo No. 272 dated 1.2.2003 under the signature of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali as contained in annexure-9, by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated. And further a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner on the post on which he was working before termination of his service with all the consequential benefits in accordance with law." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 1.2.2003 in this writ application which has been filed on 3.1.2014 i.e. after nearly eleven years of the termination of service of the petitioner, has basically concentrated on the aspect that since the petitioner had continued in service since 22.5.1980 on the post of Basic Health Worker, her termination of service after more than 22 years of service is bad both on fact and in law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to explain the delay of eleven years in moving this Court by taking a plea that the matter relating to her appointment was under examination and, as such, she was waiting for the result but, when no decision could be taken in her case, she had been advised to file this writ application. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid explanation for delay of 11 years in moving this Court cannot be accepted and the writ application is fit to be dismissed on this ground only as has been held in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through ITS Chairman & Managing Director & Anr. Vs. K. Thangappan & Anr. reported in 2006(4)SCC 322 wherein in it has been held as follows:— "9. It was stated in State of M.P. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal [ (1986) 4 SCC 566 ] that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weights with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction." 5. This Court has also no iota of doubt that the appointment of the petitioner was itself out and out an illegal appointment. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on the post of Basic Health Worker under the order of the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer dated 22.5.1980 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. That also, however, was not pursuant to any selection process and in fact is by way of transfer order of the petitioner on the post of Basic Health Worker. How the petitioner transferred from Ranchi district to Gumla district where he is said to have been again transferred by Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Gumla is itself mysterious. Surprisingly, the petitioner claims that again he was transferred from Gumla district to joint the office of Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Ranch in May, 1987 whereafter he was posted at Primary Health Center, Ratu. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have been transferred from Ranchi district to Vaishali district. There is no order of transfer but the Civil Surgeon of Ranchi district has relieved the petitioner for joining of the petitioner in Vaishali district. 6. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have been transferred from Ranchi district to Vaishali district. There is no order of transfer but the Civil Surgeon of Ranchi district has relieved the petitioner for joining of the petitioner in Vaishali district. 6. It was in Vaishali district that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice as also to appear before the Committee for verification of his appointment but the petitioner did not respond to such notice and did not appear before the Committee as a result whereof the impugned order dated 1.2.2013 was passed by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali on 1.2.2003, which reads as follows:— ^^dk;kZy; vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld lg eq[; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] oS'kkyh AgkthiqjA vkns'k eq[; lfpo] fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad 746(4_ fnukad 9.7.02 rFkk LokLF; foHkkxh; funs'k i=kad 32(4) fnukad 8.2.03 ds funs'kkuqlkj oS'kkyh ftys esa fnukad 1.1.80 ls fu;qfDRk deZpkfj;ksa ds fu;qfDr dh oSèkrk dh tkap ds fy, xfBr lfefr dh cSBd esa fnukad 30.1.03 dks dksbZ vfHkys'k ugha miLFkkfir djus] tkap lfefr ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gksus rFkk eq[;ky; ls fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds yEch vof/k ls djkj jgus ds dkj.k lfefr }kjk budh fu;qfDr dks voS/k djkj fn;k x;k gS rFkk lfefr }kjk vuq'kalk dh x;h gS fd budh fu;qfDr dks voS/k ekurs gq, Jh usy'ku ewewZ] eq0Lok0 dk;ZdRrkZ] izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz egqvk dh lsok lekIr dh tk,A vr% mDr fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa Jh usy'ku eweZw cqfu;knh LokLF; dk;ZdRrkZ]izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz egqvk dh lsok muds fu/kkZfjr eq[;ky; ls fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds djkj jgus dh frfFk ls gh lekIr dh tkrh gSA izHkkjh fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] izk0Lok0ds0 egqvk buds vkoklh; irs ls bl i= dks miyc/k djk nsaA g0@& vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld lg eq[; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] oS'kkyh Kkikad 272 gkthiqj] fnukad 1.203** 7. The appointment of the petitioner, therefore, on the post of Basic Health Worker which is a cadre post and for which selection has to be made on the basis of an advertisement published in the newspaper followed by publication of the panel was never gone into and, therefore, these appointments were void ab initio. 8. Let it be noted that all such appointments without following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the Health Department itself in the famous case known as Dr. Mallik's appointment was deprecated to no uncertain terms in the case of Ashwani Kumar & Ors. Vs. 8. Let it be noted that all such appointments without following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the Health Department itself in the famous case known as Dr. Mallik's appointment was deprecated to no uncertain terms in the case of Ashwani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1997(1)PLJR 59 SC. 9. The claim of the petitioner that whatever may be infirmity in the initial appointment of the petitioner got cured either on account of her confirmation of service or long continuation in service in fact was answered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar (supra) in the following terms:— "The whole exercise remained in the realm of an unauthorised adventure. Nothing could come out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Zero multiplied by zero remained zero consequently no sustenance can be drawn by the appellants from these confirmation orders issued to them by Dr. Mallick on the basis of the directions issued by the concerned authorities at the relevant time. It would amount to regularisation of back door entries which were vitiated from the very inception of learned counsel for appellants that the vacancies on the Scheme had nothing to do with regular posts. Whether they are posts or vacancies they must be backed up by budgetary provisions so as to be included within the permissible infrastructure of the Scheme. Any posting which is dehors the budgetary grant and on a non- existing vacancy would be outside the sanctioned scheme and would remain totally unauthorised. No right would accrue to the incumbent of such an imaginary or shadow vacancy. In this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularisation in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies. No right would accrue to the incumbent of such an imaginary or shadow vacancy. In this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularisation in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on ad hoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the concerned incumbents have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employs them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularise them so that the concerned employees can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But this would require one pre-condition that the initial entry of such an employees must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation in which the question of regularisation may arise would be when the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flow in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by competent authority and the irregular initial appointment may be regularised and security of tenure may be made available to the concerned incumbent. But even in such a case the initial entry must not be found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment. In any case back door entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. However, there would never arise any occasion for regularising the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could ever be effected. However, there would never arise any occasion for regularising the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could ever be effected. Such an entry of an employee would remain tainted from the very beginning and no question of regularising such an illegal entrant would ever survive for consideration, however competent the recruiting agency may be." 10. Let it be noted that in the Health Department, there is not only one Dr. Mallik but in fact "Dr. Mallik" is no longer a proper noun but a common noun. A large number of illegal appointments, more than thousand in number were made all over Bihar and they were unearthed under the order of the Chief Secretary and, thereafter, steps for termination of services was taken and the petitioner's termination of service is only one among them. A large number of them had moved this Court and where the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground of long continuation of service in the case of Sitendra Kumar Singh with analogous cases Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2003(4)PLJR 282. The matter was taken in appeal and under the common order of the Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Purendra Sulan Kit reported in 2006(3)PLJR 386 in 526 writ applications and 293 latter patent appeals, a direction had been issued for examining those appointments by a Committee to be constituted by the Health Department. 11. The Committee, thereafter, had examined the records and had found the appointment of a large number of persons to be wholly illegal and vitiated by fraud and forgery as also being without jurisdiction. Thereafter, the matter had remained litigated till recently when a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 200 of 2010 (The State of Bihar Vs. 11. The Committee, thereafter, had examined the records and had found the appointment of a large number of persons to be wholly illegal and vitiated by fraud and forgery as also being without jurisdiction. Thereafter, the matter had remained litigated till recently when a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 200 of 2010 (The State of Bihar Vs. Madhu Kumari) disposed of on 24.9.2014 had again dismissed the claim of the similarly situated employees of the Health Department wherein after holding the appointments to be illegal, it was held as with regard to the claim for being reinstated in service on the basis of long continuation in the following terms:— "This brings us to the last question whether in view of their long service, the writ petitioners are entitled to regularization in service as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (3) (2006(4)SCC 1). This was the precise question which was referred to the Full Bench in the matter of Ram Sevak Yadav & Anr. (2013(1)PLJR 964). The Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that the judgment in Uma Devi (supra), prohibits regularization of such appointments, the period of service being irrelevant; and that illegal appointment void ab- initio cannot be regularised under any circumstances. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Binay Kumar Singh & Ors. [ 2011 (3) PLJR 547 ] is no longer a good law. In the present case, the appointments of the writ petitioners have been repeatedly held to be non est or void ab-initio. The question of regularization of their service even by invoking paragraph 44 of the judgment in the matter of Uma Devi (3) (supra) shall not arise." 12. As with regard to the plea of long continuation in service in a case of illegal appointment, the issue was even earlier gone into by the Apex Court in the case of Binod Kumar Gupta Vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto reported in 2005(4)SCC 209 wherein the Apex Court had declined to interfere with the order of termination passed after fifteen years of service in case of an illegal appointment. 13. Ram Ashray Mahoto reported in 2005(4)SCC 209 wherein the Apex Court had declined to interfere with the order of termination passed after fifteen years of service in case of an illegal appointment. 13. Additionally, this Court would find that the illegality in the case of appointment of the petitioner is not only apparent from the tenor of the appointment letter of the petitioner which, as noted above, is an order of transfer, but even otherwise from reading of the materials on record, it would be clear that in the appointment of the petitioner, the procedure laid down of publication of the advertisement in the newspaper followed by selection process as laid down by the State Government, was never followed. Such illegal appointment, in teeth of mandate of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, cannot confer any right to the petitioner. Reliance in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in 2011(3) SCC 436 wherein it was held as follows:— "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. 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 Vs. Delhi Admn. [ (1992) 4 SCC 99 ], State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh [ (1992)4 SCC 118 , Excise Supt. Vs. K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao [ (1996) 6 SCC 216 ], Arun Tewari Vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh [ (1998) 2 SCC 332 ], Binod Kumar Gupta Vs. (Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Admn. [ (1992) 4 SCC 99 ], State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh [ (1992)4 SCC 118 , Excise Supt. Vs. K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao [ (1996) 6 SCC 216 ], Arun Tewari Vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh [ (1998) 2 SCC 332 ], Binod Kumar Gupta Vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto [ (2005) 4 SCC 209 ], National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Somvir Singh [ (2006) 5 SCC 493 ], Deptt. Of Telecommunications Vs. Keshab Deb [ (2008)8 SCC 402 ], State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh [ (2009)5 SCC 65 and State of M.P. Vs. Mohd. Abrahim.[2009)15 SCC 214]) 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 Article 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." (Underlining for emphasis) 14. It has to be kept in mind that the said view of the Apex Court in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra) has recently been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Chandreshwar Pathak reported in 2014(13) SCC 232 . 15. Thus, apart from the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court, he does not have a case on merit, and his appointment, being out and out illegal, the same was rightly terminated in the year 2003 and this Court in exercise of its power under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 will never give protection to such a tainted illegal appointment of the petitioner. 16. 16. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this writ application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.