M.R. Pathak, J.:-- Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department appearing for State respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. D. M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. Janata High School, Rampur in the district of Nalbari is a provincialised High School. In spite of being a provincialised High School, the School Managing Committee of said Janata High School on 30.05.2004, of its own resolved to appoint the petitioner in the post of LDA in the said school on honorary basis and accordingly the Headmaster cum Secretary of said provincialised High School on 24.06.2004 issued an appointment order to the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner joined his service and it is stated that the then Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari by his order under Memo No.EST-3/145/06/5548-53 dated 28.02.2006 temporary allowed the petitioner to draw salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 2890/- plus other allowances as admissible under the rules with effect from 01.02.2006 against a post that fall vacant due to expiry of one Dipak Das, Lower Division Assistant of another School, namely, Kumarikata Higher Secondary School or till the appointment of L.D.A. made against the said vacancy in the Kumarikata H. S. School, whichever is earlier. However, after receipt of salary for about three months, the concerned Treasury Officer raised objection of the bill of the petitioner and since then the salary of the petitioner was stopped. 3. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for his appointment as L.D.A. and to adjust him against the vacant post in Lachima High Madrassa considering his service as L.D.A. in Janata High School, Rampur without any break and to release his salary w.e.f. July, 2006. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed in Janata High School on need basis and that the State respondents had knowledge about the same. With regard to the payment of salary, the petitioner has placed a copy of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Manipur and others v. State Land Use Board Casual Employees' Association and another reported in 2007 (1) GLT 409 as well as Thokchomapabi Singh & others v. State of Manipur & others reported in 2015 (4) GLJ (NOC) 427. The petitioner has also submitted that the State respondent earlier regularised such L.D.A. appointed by the SMC sin provincialised High School. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is serving in the school as L.D.A. since 24.06.2004 and has drawn his salary for three months in the year 2006 i.e. for the months of April, May and June. 5. Ms. A. Bora, learned Standing Counsel Secondary Education submitted that the State Government in Secondary Education department have formulated relevant Rules, namely 'the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Services Rules, 2003', a statutory Rules under Article 309 of Constitution of India, regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of the persons appointed to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Services, which came in to effect in the State from 12th August 2003. Ms. Bora also submitted that the post of Junior Assistant (LDA) in provincialised High/Higher Secondary School under the said 2003 Rules is a Class III (ii) Cadre and that the Rule 4 of said 2003 specifically provides the methods of recruitment to the Cadre of Lower Division Assistant (Junior Assistant) in provincialised High/Higher Secondary School in the State and that the petitioner was appointed in violation of the said statutory 2003 Rules and as such he is not entitled to such benefit as prayed for. 6. In the present case the SMC of Janata High School, a provincialised High School took the decision to appoint the petitioner on 30.05.2004 on honorary basis and appointed him as LDA in the said School, in violation of said statutory 2003 Rules. The petitioner was earlier paid salary for the months of April, May & June, 2006 by the then Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle against a post that fall vacant due expiry of a LDA in another provincialised Higher Secondary School, namely Kumarikata H.S. School. 7. Rule 4(a) of said 2003 Rules with regard to the recruitment of LDA in the office of the provincialised High School/High Madrassa, Higher Secondary School/Higher Secondary & Multipurpose Schools provides for direct recruitment after due selection on the basis of written test & typewriting test and further provides that the candidates applying for such direct recruitment must be registered with the concerned District Employment Exchange. 8. 8. Perused the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, considered the same and found that those are not applicable in present case as the facts involved in those cases are different from the present case. 9. In a similarly placed situation like the petitioner herein, with regard to an incumbent appointed by the Managing Committee of a High School on honorary basis, approved by the Inspector of Schools, seeking regularisation of his service for serving on the basis for serving more than ten years, a Division of this Court in the case of Abdul Bari v. State of Assam & others reported in 1999 (3) GLT 31 has already laid down the law holding that - "Every eligible person is entitled to a chance to be selected and if such chance is not made available to such persons in general, undoubtedly it will be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. By the device adopted, to bypass the statutory rules for direct recruitment, the right of all other eligible persons to be considered for appointment, cannot be done away with. They cannot be deprived of such opportunity to be candidates for regular appointments. If such deviation is allowed to be continued, opportunity for employment will be reduced to a selected few depriving majority of other eligible persons entitled for consideration on merit As indicated above, as a matter of fact there is no such provision for appointment of honorary teachers, any provision for regularisation as well. Therefore, it is difficult to uphold the claim of the petitioner appellant only on the basis that the management allowed him to work in honorary capacity without backing of any provision under the law." 10. It is a settled law that any appointment made in violation of statutory Rule of recruitment is illegal and illegal appointment cannot be regularised. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 65 , has laid down that - "Any action, which had not been taken by an authority competent therefor and in complete violation of the constitutional and legal framework, would not be binding on the State. In any event, having regard to the fact that the said authority himself had denied to have issued a letter, there was no reason for the State not to act pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof. In any event, having regard to the fact that the said authority himself had denied to have issued a letter, there was no reason for the State not to act pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof. The action of the State did not, thus, lack bona fides." 11. In the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that - "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. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. v. K. Brahmanandam, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 241 have held that - "14. The right to claim salary must arise under a contract or under a statute. If such a right arises under a contract between the appointee and the institution, only the latter would be liable therefor. Its right in certain situation to claim reimbursement of such salary from the State would only arise in terms of the law as was prevailing at the relevant time. If the State in terms of the statute is not liable to pay the salary to the teachers, no legal right accrues in favour of those who had been appointed in violation of mandatory provisions of the statute or statutory rules. 15. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it is trite, must be scrupulously followed. 15. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it is trite, must be scrupulously followed. The court ordinarily would not issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus for regularisation of the service of the employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. 16. Appointments made in violation of the mandatory provisions of a statute would be illegal and, thus, void. Illegality cannot be ratified. Illegality cannot be regularised, only an irregularity can be." 13. In the present case the appointment of the petitioner is in violation of 'the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Services Rules, 2003', a statuary Rule for recruitment in provincialised Secondary Schools in the State including the post of Lower Division Assistant (Junior Assistant), that came in to force w.e.f 12.08.2003 and in the present case the petitioner was appointed by the School Managing Committee of said Janata High School, Rampur, Nalbari District. As the appointment of the petitioner is illegal being violation of the statutory Rules it cannot be ratified nor can his service be regularised as it is already settled that illegality cannot be regularised. Further, petitioner's appointment being illegal and violation of the statutory Rules, the State respondents are not entitled to pay his salary as it is already settled that only when appointment is made as per the law and the recruitment rules in force during such appointment, in such cases only reimbursement of salary from the State would only arise. Being appointed in violation of the statutory and mandatory provisions of recruitment Rules in force, no legal right accrues in favour of the petitioner has not accrued any legal right for his salary from the State respondents for the service rendered by him as LDA in the said Janata High School. 14. For the reasons above, this writ petition being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. No order as to cost. -