JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 7231 of 2016 1. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 60 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel appearing for the both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph Nos. 4,5,6 and 7, 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. 7231 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 523 of 2016 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, who has preferred W.P.(S) No. 2650 of 2015 for regularisation of his services with effect from 21st October, 1982, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 21st July, 2016 and hence, original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant (Original petitioner) was engaged as a daily wager with effect from 1st September, 1979 and vide order dated 20th October, 1982 he was engaged as Work Sarkar on daily wages basis in the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department. 6. It appears that this employment was given without any public advertisement and without following any recruitment procedure for appointment on Class IV post. 7. It further appears from the facts of the case that the appellant was terminated with effect from 18th December, 1987, but, he was again engaged on daily wages with effect from 8th March, 1988. 8. Further, it appears that earlier a writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 4117 of 2005, was preferred by this appellant, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30th July, 1976. This appellant was permitted to prefer a representation for regularisation before the authority . 9. In view of the aforesaid direction, representation was filed by the appellant and a reasoned order, dated 16th August, 2013 (Annexure No.5 to the L.P.A.), was also passed by the respondent authorities and in the said order, it has been stated that employment has been given intermittently to this appellant as daily rated worker. 9. In view of the aforesaid direction, representation was filed by the appellant and a reasoned order, dated 16th August, 2013 (Annexure No.5 to the L.P.A.), was also passed by the respondent authorities and in the said order, it has been stated that employment has been given intermittently to this appellant as daily rated worker. It has also been stated in the said reasoned order that appointment of the appellant was made illegally and the post in question was also not sanctioned. 10. This reasoned order dated 16th August, 2013 passed by the Government has been challenged by this appellant in another writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 2650 of 2016 for regularisation of his services from 21st August, 1982. This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide detailed speaking order dated 21st July, 2016. 11. In view of these facts and circumstances, it appears that the appellant was appointed without any public advertisement and without following any procedure of regular employment. Moreover, on the post on which he was appointed was also not a sanctioned post. 12. Lately, It has become a fashion that employment is made in grossest violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Back door entry has become rampant in public employment now a days and in our considered view, such type of back door entrants should go by the same entry through which they have joined. Services of such employees cannot be regularised as they are not appointed in pursuance of a public advertisement and there being no procedure of regular employment followed. It appears that such type of employment is for the few fortunates only. 13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER vs. MAMATA MOHANTY reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 in para 35 and 36 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, it 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, it 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 news papers having wide circulation or by announcement in raido 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision, who have been appointed without any public advertisement, they are not even entitled for salary. At the most they are entitled to some damages. Salary word goes with the regular employment. Salary cannot be paid to illegal employees. Such type of back door entrants or illegal employees are entitled at the most to damages and now it is high time that the amount of damages is deducted either from the salary or pension, as the case may be, of the officer upon whose order such back door entry has been made. 15. Such type of back door entrants or illegal employees are entitled at the most to damages and now it is high time that the amount of damages is deducted either from the salary or pension, as the case may be, of the officer upon whose order such back door entry has been made. 15. The aforesaid aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 2650 of 2015 vide order dated 21st July, 2016. We, therefore, do not find any reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 16. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.