JUDGMENT : 1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged on the post of mate as a daily wage worker in the year 1966. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of mate in the work charged establishment by order dated 18.1.1968. Subsequently, the petitioner was freshly appointed on the post of Gage Reader in the work charged establishment by an order dated 16.1.1979. In the meantime, the State Government by an order dated 19.2.1981 took a policy decision to adjust/absorb the employees working in the work charged establishment to the regular establishment. In pursuance to the said policy decision of the State government, the Joint Secretary of the Irrigation Department, issued a letter dated 26.9.1981 communicating the decision of the Government to the effect that the employees working under Work charged establishment, who were appointed prior to 21.8.1975, may be adjusted on regular vacant posts on the basis of their seniority and qualification. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was appointed in the regular establishment on the post of Correspondence Clerk in the prescribed pay scale of Rs. 284-372/- per month by an order dated 5.12.1981, which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was then granted First Time Bound promotion after completion of ten years of service on 5.12.1981 and Second Time Bound Promotion on 20.1.1993 and the service of the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Correspondence Clerk by an order dated 17.12.1990. 2. The petitioner was continued to work on the post of Correspondence Clerk without any hitch. However, suddenly in the year 2003, after a lapse of about 22 years, the State Government is said to have woken up from its slumber and the Under Secretary of the Department of Water Resources directed the Chief Engineer by letter dated 3.5.2003 to cancel the adjustment of the petitioner on the post of Correspondence Clerk and to revert him to the post of Gauge Reader. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, vide its letter dated 31.5.2003 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner herein stating therein that as per letter No. 3058 dated 22.10.1984 there is a provision for regularizing the work charged establishment employee in the regular establishment on the same post after completion of five years of satisfactory service, hence, the petitioner could not have been absorbed against the post of Correspondence Clerk. In such view of the matter, the petitioner was called upon to submit his show cause reply as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Gauge Reader and his service be regularized w.e.f. 22.10.1984 and consequently as to why the First Time Bound Promotion and the Second Time Bound Promotion granted to him be not cancelled. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 10.6.2003, where after the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea by his office order dated 1.7.2003, passed the impugned order, whereupon his absorption on the post of Correspondence Clerk was cancelled and he was directed to be absorbed against the post of Gauge Reader. In the said order dated 1.7.2003 it has been specified that no recovery shall be made and the petitioner would be granted due promotion on the post of Gauge Reader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly the impugned order dated 1.7.2003 has been passed after a lapse of 22 years and thereafter, the petitioner has also superannuated from the service on 31.5.2004, as such there is no justification in passing the said order dated 1.7.2003. It is further contended that a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 1.7.2003 would show that there is no application of mind inasmuch as the representation filed by the petitioner has not been considered, hence the said order dated 1.7.2003 does not spell out the reasons for cancellation of absorption of the petitioner on the post of Correspondence Clerk and on this ground alone the same is fit to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Dhurjatti Kumar Prasad has fairly conceded the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 1.7.2003 and has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 114 [Kushum Lal Mehta vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.] whereby and where under it has been held that in case of entry to the Class IV post through the back door, adjustment of a work charged employee, holding on lower post, is not permissible on a higher post. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to a judgment reported in 2007(4) PLJR 259 [Durganand Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.], which is a Full Bench judgment of this Court, to contend that the employees, who were regularized on work charged establishment, had no indefeasible right to challenge the order of reversion and those employees who have been regularized/promoted on Class-3 post in regular establishment and whose entry in Class IV post has not been in accordance with law, such employees cannot be benefited and no right is conferred on them for regular appointment. It would be relevant to quote paragraphs- 20, 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Durganand Jha VS. State of Bihar (supra): “20. So far the question pertaining to regularization of the employees of regular establishment is concerned, it would be appropriate to mention that concept of regularization should not be construed in any manner as the act of the authorities regularizing the employees, whose appointments were casual, contractual or on daily wages having sanction of law in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 21. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment. Any appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution shall make such appointment ab initio void and merely because a temporary employee or a casual daily waged worker continued for some time, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance if the original appointment was not made by following due process of selection, as envisaged by relevant Rules. 24. The writ petitioners, as it appears from the materials on record, who were regularized from Work Charged Establishment to regular establishment have no indefeasible right to challenge the order of reversion in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman (supra). 25. So far the writ petitioners, who were regularized/promoted on Class III posts in the regular establishment are concerned, I do not find sufficient materials to hold that their entry in Class IV posts was in accordance with law and the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 25. So far the writ petitioners, who were regularized/promoted on Class III posts in the regular establishment are concerned, I do not find sufficient materials to hold that their entry in Class IV posts was in accordance with law and the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They were engaged on Class IV posts either as casual or daily rated workers for exigency of works and it has not been demonstrated in the writ applications that they were promoted/regularized on Class III posts by the State authorities in accordance with the provisions of law, circulars and mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This has been prominent view of the Courts of law that appointments made without following the due process or the Rules for appointment did not confer any right on the appointees. 26. In case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) it has been held that adherence to the Rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution and since the Rule of law in the core of the Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” 6. Thus, in nutshell the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since the petitioner has not been able to satisfy that his entry in Class IV service is legal and through valid process of law, he cannot claim, as of right, to be absorbed on Class IV post. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and considered the submissions made by them. I find that in the present case, neither in the show cause notice dated 3.5.2003 nor in the impugned order dated 1.7.2003, there is any whisper regarding the petitioner having entered Class IV post through backdoor or any illegal means. On the contrary, I find that the petitioner was freshly appointed in the year 1968, and finally on 16.1.1979 the petitioner was appointed on the post of gauge reader in the work charged establishment, where after pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government Dated 19.2.1991, the petitioner was appointed in the regular establishment on the post of Correspondence Clerk by an order dated 5.12.1981. From the aforesaid Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Kushum Lal Mehta vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (supra), it is apparent that in the cases where the entry itself is through backdoor, an employee cannot be absorbed/adjusted in the regular establishment on Class III posts. However, in the present case there is nothing on record to suggest that the entry of the petitioner herein on Class-IV post is through backdoor, hence, there is no impediment in absorption of the petitioner against the post of Correspondence Clerk. 8. Another issue, which arises for consideration herein, is as to whether the privilege of equity invoked by this Court in a case reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 115 (Abhay Kumar Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors.), to the effect that if an employee of the State is allowed to continue in the service for several years, then his service should not be terminated, would be applicable in the present case or not. At this juncture, I am of the view that the said judgment, rendered in the case of Abhay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Bihar (supra), as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court squarely covers the present case. As far as the Full Bench judgment in the case of Durga Nand Jha vs. The State of Bihar (supra) is concerned, the principle of equity, though argued, was not invoked since the said question, according to the Full Bench, was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the said case, since the engagement of the petitioners of the said case, at the entry itself was found to be through backdoor, hence the same was not found to be in accordance with law. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as also the fact that the impugned order dated 1.7.2003 has been passed after a lapse of 22 years, during which period the petitioner has continued to work without any blemish in his career, I deem it fit and proper to quash the impugned order dated 1.7.2003. 9. Before parting this Court deems it necessary to put a word of appreciation for the assistance rendered by Shri Dhurjati Kr. Prasad, learned G.P. 14, appearing for the State. 10. The writ petition is allowed.