ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, whose writ petition being W.P. (S) No.5708 of 2014 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22nd July, 2016 and the prayer of this appellant for regularization into the service was rejected. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant is an original petitioner who had preferred W.P. (S) No.5708 of 2014 for regularization into the service of the respondents-State mainly for the reason that he was serving with the respondents since 1998 and the order passed by the respondents-authorities dated 09.05.2013 rejecting his representation mainly on the ground that there was no sanctioned post and he was working. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that looking to Annexure 1 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, this appellant was working against the sanctioned post. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 3. We are not in agreement with the contention raised by this appellant mainly for the reason that basically this appellant has been appointed as a back-door entrant. There was no public advertisement for the public post in question. Moreover, public at large have not been given any opportunity to compete for the post in question. It appears that at the relevant time in the year 1998, this appellant may be more influential than intelligent. Had there been any public advertisement, had the public at large been invited and if he would have been selected, the case would have been different. It has become a fashion in this country that those who are on the high-ranking administrative positions, they are always giving employment initially on temporary basis and thereafter, hundred and hundred of petitions are being filed for regularization. This modus operandi has to come to an end. 4. Enough is enough. Intelligent person cannot wait on road in a queue for getting public employment and “few fortunate” cannot get the back-door entry into the public employment. Length of service cannot be looked into. Once a person is appointed without public advertisement and without following the rules of the employment, he has to go home at any point of time. 5. Intelligent person cannot wait on road in a queue for getting public employment and “few fortunate” cannot get the back-door entry into the public employment. Length of service cannot be looked into. Once a person is appointed without public advertisement and without following the rules of the employment, he has to go home at any point of time. 5. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs Chandreshwar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 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 425-10,565 EB-10-605 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: (SCC pp. 451-52, paras 35-36) “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. (Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Excise Supt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb, State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and State of M.P. v. Mohd. Abrahim.) 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. 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) 6. In view of the aforesaid decision, even such type of “back-door entrants” cannot get salary. The word “salary” will go only with legal employment. Such type of persons can get damages, but not salary. 7. This judgment has to be followed by the Government also. Basically the high-ranking administrative officers ought to keep in mind and should read such type of judgments periodically. To give public employment without advertisement is a mental weakness of the high ranking administrative officers. 8. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ashif v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 5 SCC 475 in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:- “13. Applying the test laid down by this Court in Umadevi (3) case and the cases referred to above, to the case at hand, there is no gainsaying that the appointments of the appellants as Primary Health Workers were totally illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which guarantee equality of opportunity to all those who were otherwise eligible for such appointments. The Chief Medical Officer who had made the appointments was not vested with the power to do so nor were the claims of other candidates eligible for appointments against the posts to which the appellants were appointed, considered. Surprisingly, the appointments had come by way of absorption of the appellants who were working as Voluntary Health Workers on a monthly honorarium of Rs 50 only. 14. The High Court has, in our opinion, correctly held that there was no cadre of Voluntary Health Workers who were working on an honorarium in State-run dispensaries. Surprisingly, the appointments had come by way of absorption of the appellants who were working as Voluntary Health Workers on a monthly honorarium of Rs 50 only. 14. The High Court has, in our opinion, correctly held that there was no cadre of Voluntary Health Workers who were working on an honorarium in State-run dispensaries. The very nature of the appointment given to the appellants as Voluntary Health Workers was honorary in nature which entitled them to the payment of not more than Rs 50 per month. It is difficult to appreciate how the Chief Medical Officer could have regularised/absorbed such Voluntary Health Workers doing honorary service against the post of Primary Health Workers which carried a regular pay scale and which could be filled only in accordance with the procedure prescribed for that purpose. The appointment of the appellants against the said posts was thus manifestly illegal and wholly undeserved to say the least. Inasmuch as these appointments came to be cancelled pursuant to the said directions no matter nearly a decade and a half later the termination could not be said to be illegal so as to warrant interference of a writ court for reinstatement of those illegally appointed. The High Court was, in that view of the matter, justified in declining interference with the order of cancellation and dismissing the writ petitions.” (Emphassis supplied) 9. In view of these two judgments, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal for regularization. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Copy of this order will be sent to the Chief Secretary and all the Secretaries of the concerned Departments, initially by Fax and thereafter by registered post.