JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 4th August, 2009 dismissed the writ petition with a finding that petitioner being the only beneficiary of the rejoining order in 1998 did not deserve the exercise of equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when fraud was writ large on the face of the records. As the relevant material facts on record reveal, petitioner''s appointment as a Clerk in the year 1988 was terminated in 1993 on the ground that the appointing authority did not have the power to appoint and there were irregularities in the appointment. The challenge to the termination of his appointment by way of a writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 4325 of 1994 did not meet with success. The learned Division Bench of Patna High Court also by a detailed order dated 20th December, 1996 passed in L.P.A. No. 212 of 1995 did not find any merit in the appeal which stood dismissed. The matter, therefore attained finality so far as the issue of petitioner''s appointment is concerned. The writ-petitioner thereafter rejoined service in the year 1998. 3. Though learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/appellant has relied upon the letter no. 952 dated 2nd December, 1998 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana, Dumka calling him with relevant documents in relation to his reappointment but there are no appointment letter on record to support the claim of the petitioner that he had rejoined service in 1998 on the basis of a valid appointment order. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner through the counter affidavit and have also taken the same plea in the present appeal. According to them, since the termination of the appointment of the petitioner attained finality by virtue of the judgments passed by the Writ Court and the learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 212 of 1995, there is no legal right in favour of the writ-petitioner to sustain the grounds of challenge to the impugned reasoned order dated 10th June, 2002 (Annexure-9) passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana, Dumka. As it appears (Annexure-9) reasoned order impugned in the writ petition was passed in an exercise undertaken by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana, Dumka on the basis of directions contained in a writ petition preferred by the petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 3684 of 2001. The petitioner through the said writ petition had raised a grievance that though he obeyed the direction of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana, Dumka and joined on earlier post, the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar had not relieved him nor the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj accepted his joining given on 11th March, 2000. The learned Single Judge by order dated 14th August, 2001 simply remitted the matter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka to determine as to where the petitioner had to function at Deoghar or at Sahebganj and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. When the matter was enquired into by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka it transpired that the petitioner did not have any formal appointment order in his name but had managed his joining in the year 1998 even though the termination of his appointment earlier made in 1993 was upheld up to the L.P.A. Court. 5. In this background, the learned Single Judge was of the clear view that cancellation of the petitioner''s appointment had attained finality and become res judicata between the parties. Therefore, the entire plea of rejoining the service in 1998 was as a result of fraud practiced by the petitioner being a sole beneficiary thereof without any legal right for such continuance in service. 6. We are also of the view that in the background material facts and circumstances noted above, the petitioner did not have any legal right to continue in service even though he may have obtained rejoining and continued for some period of time under the respondent-authorities of the Education Department. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was right in refusing to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. We do not find any error in the impugned order warranting our interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.