JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 6870 of 2016 Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 47 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel for the both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph No.4, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay. 3. In view of these facts, we, hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6870 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 748 of 2015 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 2072 of 2014 against the order dated 29thSeptember, 2015 vide which the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition rejecting the claim for regularisation of this petitioner in the services of the Forest Department. 5. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly on the following grounds:- (I) it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) was working on daily wage as a Cattle Guard in the Forest Department of the respondent State for a period of three years. This alone cannot be a ground for regularisation and regularisation in this case will be in grossest violation of the provisions of Article 14 to be read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. (II) It ought to be kept in mind that any public post, including the Class IV post, in the State of Jharkhand cannot be given to anyone without there being any public advertisement and without there being any prescribed procedure followed by the State. This appellant (original petitioner) was never appointed in pursuance of any public advertisement. No procedure was followed for the appointment of this appellant. Enough is enough. Such type of back door entrant cannot be given a Class IV public post in the State of Jharkhand (III) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others vs. Chandreshwar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 , in para nos. 11, 12 and13 as under:- “10. Enough is enough. Such type of back door entrant cannot be given a Class IV public post in the State of Jharkhand (III) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others vs. Chandreshwar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 , in para nos. 11, 12 and13 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 asunder: (SCC pp. 451-52, paras 35-36) “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 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. 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) In view of the aforesaid decision, those who are appointed without public advertisement and without following a prescribed procedure, are not entitled even for their salary. Thus, this appellant is not entitled to regularisation in the services of the State because his appointment itself was illegal and no illegality in appointment can be cured by regularisation. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by this appellant. 6. Thus, this appellant is not entitled to regularisation in the services of the State because his appointment itself was illegal and no illegality in appointment can be cured by regularisation. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by this appellant. 6. As a cumulative effect of the reasons, facts and judicial pronouncement, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2072 of 2014 and we are in full agreement with the reasons. 7. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.