ORDER : 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 6702 of 2013 dated 1st September, 2015, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner was dismissed and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 2. Factual Matrix:- (1) This appellant (original petitioner) was dismissed from the services by the respondent-State. He was working as a daily wage worker in the Water Resources Department, Swarnrekha Project, Chandil Complex, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur. On 5th October, 2005, reference was referred under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Reference Case No. 33 of 2005 was instituted before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. (2) Labour Court, Jamshedpur has decided the reference and has pointed out that the workman has not worked with the Management from April, 1990 to January, 1992, hence, there is no question of terminating the services of the workman from February, 1992, whatsoever. It has been observed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur that this appellant has not been able to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days. (3) Against this award in Reference Case No. 33 of 2005, W.P. (L) No. 6702 of 2013 was preferred by the appellant which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1st September, 2015 and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 3. Arguments advances by the learned counsel for the appellant:- (1) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that earlier in another case, an application was preferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for getting remuneration/wages. This application was decided in favour of this appellant, against which, the Management had filed a writ petition which was dismissed by this Court. Looking to the said order, it appears that this appellant has worked for more than 240 days. (2) It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the definition of the word 'Workman' includes the daily wage worker under the Industrial Disputes Act and, hence, the provisions of Section 25-F has to be followed. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may kindly be allowed. 4. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may kindly be allowed. 4. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents: (1) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that neither any advertisement was issued nor any application was preferred by this appellant nor any interview was conducted. The low ranking officer of the State of Jharkhand viz. Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandil, Jamshedpur has employed this appellant and that too as a daily wage worker. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandil, Jamshedpur has no power, jurisdiction and authority to give employment on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. (2) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that even if such type of back door entry employee has worked for 240 days and has get some remuneration, that does not mean that reinstatement order can be passed, otherwise, appointment of back door entry employee or illegal appointee will be converted into legal appointment. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS:- 5. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) It appears from the facts of the case that this appellant could not establish the fact that he was regularly appointed workman by the respondent-State of Jharkhand. Thus, there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties to this litigation. (ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that a low ranking officer of the State of Jharkhand viz. Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandil, Jamshedpur had given employment to this appellant as a daily wage worker, without any advertisement, without any application of this appellant and without holding any interview etc. Thus, this appellant is a back door entry employee and his appointment is absolutely illegal in nature. (iii) No public appointment can be given like the one which is given to this appellant, unless there is advertisement and application and unless others are permitted to compete for the post, in question. Thus, this appellant is a back door entry employee and his appointment is absolutely illegal in nature. (iii) No public appointment can be given like the one which is given to this appellant, unless there is advertisement and application and unless others are permitted to compete for the post, in question. This appellant was given employment unauthorisedly by another employee, namely, Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandil, Jamshedpur in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such type of employment is null in the eye of law. (iv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Chandreshwar Pathak, as reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 , at paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 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 42510,565 EB-10605 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. 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, no error has been committed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur while dismissing Reference Case No. 33 of 2005. 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, no error has been committed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur while dismissing Reference Case No. 33 of 2005. Similarly, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (L) No. 6702 of 2013 vide order dated 1st September, 2015, as this appellant was appointed absolutely in grossest violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As this appellant is a back door entrant, neither his services can be regularized nor any relief can be given to this appellant. (v) If the services of such type of appellant, who is a back door employee, are regularized, then there will be deprivation of rights of others to get public employment. Nobody knows whether this appellant was legally qualified for appointment or not and nobody knows whether this appellant is over age as on date of appointment or not. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (L) No. 6702 of 2013 vide order dated 1st September, 2015. There being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.