JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Original petitioners, whose writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 4546 of 2015 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10th April, 2017, whereby the claim of these appellants for getting higher pay-scale, which is Rs. 5,500-9,000, with effect from 1st January, 1996 was not accepted and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners. 2. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that these two appellants are back door entrants, whose appointment letters were given by the Principal of the college instead of Vice-Chancellor of the University. Their appointment letters are at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. As it appears, Principal of the college had no power, jurisdiction and authority to give them employment, that too without any public advertisement and without any interview and there was no sanctioned post also. In this background these two appellants are appointed. It appears that they are more influential than intelligent. Public employment cannot be given without public advertisement and without inviting applications from the public at large. Anyhow, they have continued with the employment in the erstwhile State of Bihar and retired from the State of Jharkhand. This type of appellants are now seeking higher scale, viz. instead of Rs.4,000-6,000, they are seeking Rs.5,500-9,000, mainly on the ground that they are graduates and hence, higher pay-scale should have been given. 3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that these two appellants were appointed in the year 1981. Looking to Para 9 of this Letters Patent Appeal and also looking to the claims made in this Letters Patent Appeal, both these appellants, after joining the services as Assistants, have acquired the qualification of Graduation. Thus, initially they were intermediate-pass candidates, who are appointed by the Principal (an unauthorized person) without any advertisement and without their being any sanctioned post. It further appears from Annexure 5 to this Letters Patent Appeal that for getting a pay-scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000, an Assistant must have been a Graduate at the time of appointment, whereas, in the facts of the present case, when these two appellants-original petitioners were appointed, they were under-graduates. Therefore, they are not entitled to higher pay-scale of Rs.5,500-9,000. 4. It further appears from Annexure 5 to this Letters Patent Appeal that for getting a pay-scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000, an Assistant must have been a Graduate at the time of appointment, whereas, in the facts of the present case, when these two appellants-original petitioners were appointed, they were under-graduates. Therefore, they are not entitled to higher pay-scale of Rs.5,500-9,000. 4. Moreover, looking to Annexure 5, Clause 3 thereof, only those, who are appointed in a lawful manner can get the higher scale as well as those, who are appointed on sanctioned post shall get higher pay-scale. Hence, these two appellants are not entitled to the higher pay-scale. 5. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 4546 of 2015 vide judgment dated 10th April, 2017 6. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER vs. MAMATA MOHANTY reported in (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 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. 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 radio 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. 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) 7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh reported in (2006) 5 SCC 493 in para 26 as under: “26. It is true that the respondents had been working for a long time. It may also be true that they had not been paid wages on a regular scale of pay. But, they did not hold any post. They were, therefore, not entitled to be paid salary on a regular scale of pay. Furthermore, only because the respondents have worked for some time, the same by itself would not be a ground for directing regularisation of their services in view of the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3).” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. v. Brahmanandam reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 241 in para 14 as under: “14. The liability of the State to pay salary to a teacher appointed in the recognised schools would arise provided the provisions of the statutory rules are complied with, subject to just exception. The right to claim salary must arise under a contract or under a statute. If such a right arises under a contract between the appointee and the institution, only the latter would be liable therefor. Its right in certain situation to claim reimbursement of such salary from the State would only arise in terms of the law as was prevailing at the relevant time. If such a right arises under a contract between the appointee and the institution, only the latter would be liable therefor. Its right in certain situation to claim reimbursement of such salary from the State would only arise in terms of the law as was prevailing at the relevant time. If the State in terms of the statute is not liable to pay the salary to the teachers, no legal right accrues in favour of those who had been appointed in violation of mandatory provisions of the statute or statutory rules.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the aforesaid decisions, in fact, these two appellants are not entitled to any salary. The word ‘salary’ goes with legally appointed persons. Those who are illegally appointed, they are entitled to, at the highest, damage and not salary. Be that as it may, these two appellants have already retired, therefore, we are not much analysing these aspects of the matter, but, looking to Annexure 5 to this Letters Patent Appeal, to be read with Paragraph 5 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and also looking to Annexure 1 to this Letters Patent Appeal, they are not entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.5,500/-9,000/-. In fact, services of these two appellants could have been brought to an end much earlier as the employment was given by the Principal of the College instead of Vice-Chancellor of the University and that too without any advertisement and without there being any sanctioned post. 10. With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed.