ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred for getting employment as Class-IV employee with the respondents-State mainly on the ground that these petitioners were working with the State Government since 30th September, 1988. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that previously, these petitioners had preferred W.P.(S) No. 5129 of 2008 and W.P.(S) No.4215 of 2008 which were both decided by this Court vide order dated 11th December, 2013 giving direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to consider the case of these petitioners. 3. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad considered the case of these petitioners and passed a detailed speaking order dated 7th March, 2014, which is at Annexure8 series to the memo of this writ petition. 4. It appears from the facts of the case that as these petitioners were not having adequate educational qualifications, their names were not recommended for regularisation of their services. The minimum qualification prescribed for Class-IV employee is VIIIth Standard passed. As these petitioners were not VIIIth Standard passed their cases were never recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) These petitioners are not having minimum qualification prescribed for Class-IV employee. Moreover, at the relevant time, these petitioners were never appointed in pursuance of the public advertisement and hence, they are back door entrants. (ii) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Chandra & others Versus State of Jharkhand & others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 798 , paragraph no. 9 thereof as under: 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no option but to hold that if an appointment is made in infraction of the recruitment rules, the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and being nullity would be liable to be cancelled. 9 thereof as under: 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no option but to hold that if an appointment is made in infraction of the recruitment rules, the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and being nullity would be liable to be cancelled. In the present case, as the vacancies were not advertised in the newspapers, the appointments made were not only in infraction of Rule 663(d) of the Bihar Police Manual but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which rendered the appointments of the appellants as illegal; as such the competent authority was quite justified in terminating their services and the High Court, by the impugned order, was quite justified in upholding the same. (Emphasis supplied) (iii) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Versus Upendra Narayan Singh & others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 , paragraph nos. 32, 44, 45, 65 & 67 thereof read as under: 32. Notwithstanding the basic mandate of Article 16 that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State, the spoils system which prevailed in America in the 17th and 18th centuries has spread its tentacles in various segments of public employment apparatus and a huge illegal employment market has developed in the country adversely affecting the legal and constitutional rights of lakhs of meritorious members of younger generation of the country who are forced to seek intervention of the court and wait for justice for years together. 44. The scenario is worst when it comes to appointment to lower strata of the civil services. Those who have been bestowed with the power to make appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts have by and large misused and abused the same by violating relevant rules and instructions and have indulged in favouritism and nepotism with impunity resulting in total negation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. 45. Those who have been bestowed with the power to make appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts have by and large misused and abused the same by violating relevant rules and instructions and have indulged in favouritism and nepotism with impunity resulting in total negation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. 45. Thousands of cases have been filed in the courts by aggrieved persons with the complaints that appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts have been made without issuing any advertisement or sending requisition to the employment exchange as per the requirement of the 1959 Act and those who have links with the party in power or political leaders or who could pull strings in the power corridors get the cake of employment. Cases have also been filed with the complaints that recruitment to the higher strata of civil services made by the Public Service Commissions have been affected by the virus of spoils system in different dimensions and selections have been made for considerations other than merit. 65. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the initial appointments of the respondents were made in gross violation of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 and the provisions of the 1959 Act and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by directing their reinstatement with consequential benefits. 67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. 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—Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, Union of India v. J.V. Subhaiah, Gursharan Singh v. NDMC, State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, Style (Dress Land) v. UT, Chandigarh, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Union of India v. International Trading Co. and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, Style (Dress Land) v. UT, Chandigarh, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Union of India v. International Trading Co. and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain. (Emphasis supplied) (iv) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Bihar and Others Versus Chandreshwar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 [: 2014(3) JLJR (SC)536] paragraph nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 thereof read 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) (v) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu & others Versus District and Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi & Another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 50 [: 2014(2) JLJR (SC)50], paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 thereof read as under: “6. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity. It forms the cornerstone of our Constitution. 7. In I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., the doctrine of basic features has been explained by this Court as under:(SCC p.108, para 141) “141. The doctrine of basic structure contemplates that there are certain parts or aspects of the Constitution including Article 15, Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 which constitute the core values which if allowed to be abrogated would change completely the nature of the Constitution. Exclusion of fundamental rights would result in nullification of the basic structure doctrine, the object of which is to protect basic features of the Constitution as indicated by the synoptic view of the rights in Part III.” 8. As Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every State action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any appointment made in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., J.A.S. Inter College v. State of U.P., M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey and State of M.P. v. Sandhya Tomar. 9. In Excise Supt. Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey and State of M.P. v. Sandhya Tomar. 9. In Excise Supt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, a larger Bench of this Court reconsidered its earlier judgment in Union of India v. N. Hargopal, wherein it had been held that insistence on recruitment through employment exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, due to the possibility of non-sponsoring of names by the employment exchange, this Court held that any appointment even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting application is in violation of the said provisions of the Constitution and 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 open market as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said articles of the Constitution. The Court further observed: (K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao case, SCC p. 218 para 6) “6. … In addition, the appropriate department … should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice … and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates (emphasis supplied) (See also Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Kishore K. Pati v. District Inspector of Schools, Midnapore.) 10. In Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana this Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein 1600 appointments made in the Police Department without advertisement stood quashed though the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 did not provide for such a course. The High Court reached the conclusion that process of selection stood vitiated because there was no advertisement and due publicity for inviting applications from the eligible candidates at large. 11. In UPSC v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela this Court held: (SCC p. 490, para 12) “12. The High Court reached the conclusion that process of selection stood vitiated because there was no advertisement and due publicity for inviting applications from the eligible candidates at large. 11. In UPSC v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela this Court held: (SCC p. 490, para 12) “12. … The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial, through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made … 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 candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) 12. The principles to be adopted in the matter of public appointments have been formulated by this Court in M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav as under: (SCC pp. 27475, para 24) “(1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (4) Those who come by back door should go through that door. (5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. (6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy. (7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. (7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. (8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside.” 13. A similar view has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, observing that any appointment made in violation of the statutory rules as also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity. “Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment.” The Court further rejected the prayer that ad hoc appointees working for long be considered for regularisation as such a course only encourages the State to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on some at the cost of many waiting to compete. (Emphasis Supplied). In view of the aforesaid decisions, when any appointment is made of a public post though the candidate is not possessing minimum educational qualification or without any advertisement or without giving any opportunity to the public at large to compete for the post in question, the said appointment is illegal and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this writ petition and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.