JUDGMENT : The appeal questions the correctness of the impugned JUDGMENT dated 22nd of March, 2018 on the ground that keeping in view the long tenure of the service of the appellant, the termination of the services of the appellant was absolutely unjustified inasmuch as there was no default on the part of the appellant nor was it the case of the respondents that the appellant had practised any undue influence for obtaining the employment. 2. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have committed an error in proceeding to dispense with the services of the appellant without holding any proper enquiry or giving any proper opportunity to the appellant and, therefore, the order dated 17th of December, 2003 was clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. We have considered the submissions raised and perused the records. The learned Single Judge has traversed all the facts and has come to the conclusion that the manner of appointment as prescribed under the Bihar Police Manual was clearly violated and the appointment was not in conformity with the same. This aspect has been dealt with in relation to similar nature of appointments in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Chandreshwar Pathak, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 where such termination orders that were upheld by this Court have been upheld by the Apex Court as well. 4. The said issue was dealt by us in the case of Shailesh Kumar Mall Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2019 (1) P.L.J.R. 975 , where also it was held that in the absence of any procedure of selection and appointment having been followed as prescribed under the Rules, the claim that the termination order was invalid was unsustainable. Following the ratio of the said decisions and keeping in view the law laid down therein, we do not find any distinction on the facts of the present case so as to take a different view. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has then invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Kumar Manjhi Vs. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has then invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Kumar Manjhi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2019 S.C. 2204 to urge that in the said case also where there was a dispute of seniority, it was held that the question of appointment cannot be gone into and the claim of seniority from the date of initial appointment would not be tenable, but the Court further did not disturb the nature of the appointment and the appellants therein were allowed to continue. 6. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we find that in that case the State itself had regularized the services on humanitarian grounds and, therefore, the Apex Court did not interfere with the same, but it has not approved any such ratio which may run counter to the judgment in the case of Chandreshwar Pathak (supra). 7. Consequently, the said judgment also does not come to the aid of the appellant. There being no merits, the appeal is, accordingly, rejected.