JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing office order dated 29.08.2011 whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated w.e.f. 30.08.2011 and for declaration that the action of the respondents in initiation of departmental proceeding and passing order of termination against the petitioner is ab initio void. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in brief, is that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by Municipal Education Project Committee, the petitioner along with others applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and after going through the selection process, a merit list was prepared and vide decision dated 14.04.1975 four persons were appointed and it was decided, as and when vacancy would arise the name of the candidates shall be recommended for appointment. It has been averred that since the name of the petitioner was in panel, he represented before Chairman, Madhupur Municipality, accordingly, appointment letter was issued in favour of petitioner vide memo dated 03.09.1975 as Matric Science Teacher at Amar Sanskrit Unch Prathmik Vidyalaya, Madhupur and vide same memo another candidate Paresh Chandra Jha, was appointed initially for the period of three months, which was extended from time to time for the same period. However, later on, the services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 01.07.1976 to the scale of Middle Trained Teacher. It has further been averred after serving more than three and half decades, all of a sudden vide letter dated 06.01.2009, two members committee was constituted to enquire into the matter of appointment of petitioner, accordingly, enquiry report was submitted finding the appointment of the petitioner void ab initio and accordingly, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which led to passing of impugned order of dismissal from services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner happens to be the District President of Teachers' Association, the District Superintendent of Education has got bias against the petitioner and submitted its report against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that after 36 years of initial appointment, the respondents have alleged that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio whereas the petitioner has been regularized in the year 1976 as per Annexure 6 to the writ application. Therefore, initiation of the departmental proceeding at the fag end of service career is illegal. Therefore, initiation of the departmental proceeding at the fag end of service career is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the relevant documents were not supplied and basis of the enquiry by the D.S.E. basing on which charges were framed, were not supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that second show cause notice was not considered and the pleadings made in this regard in the writ application has not been controverted by the respondents. Furthermore, the departmental proceeding has been initiated without affording any opportunity of hearing and without supply prejudicial documents so as to petitioner could put forth his case by way of filing effective show cause reply. It has been submitted that on the one hand, the enquiry officer himself admit that no document with respect to appointment of the petitioner was available for perusal for enquiry officer or disciplinary officer but on the other hand, a finding has been recorded that the initial appointment is void ab initio. Further, the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority has heavily relied upon typed copy of resolution of Madhupur Municipality, which is nothing but a forged documents. It has been submitted that the said documents were supplied after disposal of appeal under R.T.I Act, from bare perusal of which, it clearly manifests that appointment of the petitioner was made validly. So far as non-supply of documents is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgments rendered in the case of Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India & Others, (1986) 3 SCC 229 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the entire departmental proceeding has been initiated by Mr. Shivendra Kumar, D.S.E. and final order has also been passed by the same person, meaning thereby he is judge of his own cause. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2010) 10 SCC 539 . Shivendra Kumar, D.S.E. and final order has also been passed by the same person, meaning thereby he is judge of his own cause. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2010) 10 SCC 539 . Equating the case of petitioner with one Paresh Chandra Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he along with Paresh Chandra Jha was appointed as untrained Matric Science Teacher from the same penal prepared by the Madhupur Municipality, and said Paresh Chandra Jha died in harness and his son namely, Dilip Jha was given compassionate appointment, which was duly approved by the respondents but the petitioner has been ousted from services. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 5. It has been submitted that vide letter dated 13.09.2006 the R.D.D.E., Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka directed the D.S.E., Deoghar to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The allegations levelled against the petitioner was enquired by the enquiry officer, who submitted its report on 03.07.2010 stating therein that the appointment of the petitioner as ab initio void, as evident from Annexure F and F/1 to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which, he replied. Pursuant thereto meeting dated 18.08.2011 of District Establishment Education Committee was held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and the case of the petitioner was discussed and the committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner is void ab initio and decided to terminate the services of the petitioner forthwith, as evident from Annexure X to the counter affidavit. Pursuant to the said decision, services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 29.08.2011. It has further been submitted that there is a specific forum of appeal to assail the order and decision of District Education Establishment Committee and Court of Divisional Commissioner is the Appellate Court/Forum, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative appellate forum. 5. It has further been submitted that there is a specific forum of appeal to assail the order and decision of District Education Establishment Committee and Court of Divisional Commissioner is the Appellate Court/Forum, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative appellate forum. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterating the averments made in the writ application has assiduously submitted that from the initiation of departmental proceeding till its culmination there is no procedural irregularity, therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere with the department proceeding unless the same is fraught with procedural irregularity or same is based on no evidence and none of the conditions existing in the instant case to warrant interference. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner on the following grounds: (i) So far as initiation of departmental proceeding to enquire the allegations of adopting concocted means for securing appointment is concerned though same was initiated at the fag end of the service career but there has been no breach of principles of natural justice nor any procedural irregularity has been committed by the departmental authorities, therefore, on that score, the impugned proceeding culminating to order of termination vide Annexure 31 cannot be assailed. (ii) It is well settled principles of law that if the initial appointment is shrouded with illegality the same cannot confer any right upon the appointee to claim permanency. Moreover, no document has been annexed in the writ application evidencing the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment to that post. Though his periodic appointment was extended three times initially but despite sufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner to put forth his claim regarding his regular appointment, the petitioner could not substantiate his claim. (iii) So far as the assertion of the petitioner, equating himself with one Paresh Chandra Jha, who was appointed with the petitioner from the panel and his son is continuing in service after his death while in service, is concerned it is no more res integra that there cannot be equity or equality in illegality. (iii) So far as the assertion of the petitioner, equating himself with one Paresh Chandra Jha, who was appointed with the petitioner from the panel and his son is continuing in service after his death while in service, is concerned it is no more res integra that there cannot be equity or equality in illegality. It is a settled principle of law that guarantee of equality before law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by citizen or Court in a negative manner. If any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals; others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of higher Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality. In other words, equality or equity has no place in case of any irregularity or illegality. Even if the case of the petitioner stands like that of Mr. Paresh Chandra Jha but in view of the aforesaid settled of law, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. (iv) Moreover, as per discussions made in the enquiry report, in the resolution dated 14.04.1975 the name of the petitioner did not find figure nor had been reserved to give to the remaining candidates in the panel so it remains in dark as to how the petitioner could manage to get appointment and continued for so many years initially may be with the patronage of some higher-ups. 7. On cumulative effect of the facts and reasons the impugned office order dated 29.08.2011 whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated w.e.f. 30.08.2011 do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merit, is dismissed.