JUDGEMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondent-Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and implementation of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as the RRDA) in its meeting held on 10.11.2008 (Annexure-2) and also for a direction for payment of salary from December, 2008 till date. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer Operator on the honorarium of Rs.5,500/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2006 which was a Co-Terminus appointment with the tenure of the then Chairman-R.N. Tiwari. After completion of the tenure of the said Chairman, his appointment was terminated in spite of the fact that the Board of RRDA vide its resolution dated 12.11.2008 has decided unanimously that the service of the petitioner will continue even after completion of the tenure of the said Chairman. This Court while hearing the matter vide its order dated 11.11.2019 has directed the petitioner to add Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand as respondent No.5 so that this Court can hear the stand of respondent No.5 as to whether in terms of Section 6 (4) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974; the resolution of the Board has been sent for approval of State Government or not. Thereafter, the State represented through Secretary, Urban Development Department and filed an affidavit rejecting the claim of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the very appointment of the petitioner was Co- Terminus with the tenure of the then Chairman and as such there was no question for any extension and further, no resolution of the Board was sent for approval to the State Government. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by RRDA as Computer Operator w.e.f. 01.04.2006. However, the RRDA’s Board of Directors in its meeting dated 10.11.2008 decided to regularize the petitioner’s service and vide Miscellaneous Item No.1 it was decided that even after completion of tenure of the then Chairman; the petitioner will continue in employment. However, the RRDA’s Board of Directors in its meeting dated 10.11.2008 decided to regularize the petitioner’s service and vide Miscellaneous Item No.1 it was decided that even after completion of tenure of the then Chairman; the petitioner will continue in employment. He further submits that in spite of the aforesaid decision, the services of the petitioner and other amenities and benefits attached to the post for regular appointment has not been given to the petitioner and w.e.f. December, 2008 even the salary of the petitioner has been stopped. He further submits that the other departments of the Government like in the services of the Governor’s Secretariat, similar such employees have been regularized and are working. 5. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh learned counsel for the respondent- RRDA submits that the appointment of the petitioner was Co-Terminus with the tenure of the then Chairman. However, in the proceeding- Anyanya-1 of the meeting of the Board of R.R.D.A. it has been recommended that petitioner will remain in future after the tenure of the said Chairman. He further submits that the said recommendation was beyond the purview of Section 6 of the Act, 1974 and also against the appointment procedure. The said resolution of the Board’s meeting being contrary to the appointment procedure; the same was never adhered to and the same was never sent for approval. He further submits that in the procedure for appointment in Class-III, there is a specific guideline from the Government and in this case the said procedure and guidelines were not followed and as such, the service of the petitioner was not regularized. He reiterated that the petitioner was appointed in the Chairman’s Cell on Co-Terminus basis i.e. only till the period of Chairman’s tenure and at present two posts are sanctioned for Computer Operator and in both posts; persons are working as per desire of the present Chairman. He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 18.08.2018 and submits that the appointment letter of the petitioner was issued by the Secretary, RRDA on the basis of recommendation of the then Chairman vide its letter dated 17.06.2006. The Chairman derived this power from the letter of the Cabinet Secretariat which clearly says that the facility which is to be given to the Chairman and others will be till the tenure and not beyond. The Chairman derived this power from the letter of the Cabinet Secretariat which clearly says that the facility which is to be given to the Chairman and others will be till the tenure and not beyond. As such, the resolution of the Board in the subsequent minutes of meeting is beyond provisions of law. In this view of the matter no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 6. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned SC-I relying upon its counter affidavit submits that in view of memo no.712 dated 16.04.2003 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat and Co-ordination Department (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 15.12.2020 filed by respondent-State) clearly stipulates that the facility which is to be given to the Chairman and others will be till the tenure of the said person and not beyond. Thus, the Chairman was entitled for few facilities till his tenure and not beyond. The RRDA, Ranchi had appointed the petitioner as Computer Operator in the Chairman’s Cell on the recommendation of the then chairman on the consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.5,500/- only w.e.f. 01.04.2006 till the term of said Chairman and after the end of his tenure the said appointment of the petitioner was automatically terminated. He further submits that the recommendation of the then Chairman regarding appointing the petitioner in 2006 was pursuant to the aforesaid Memo no.712 dated 16.04.2003. However, the Board’s resolution recommending for regularization and/or continuing the service of the petitioner even beyond the tenure of the then Chairman was not having any force of law, notification or circular. He further refers to Section 6 of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act which provides for staff of the Authority and under sub-section 4 of Section 6 of the Act it is stipulated that the Authority may appoint the consultant on hire to assist in planning and other tasks. It further provides that in case the consultation fee exceeds Rs.5000/-, prior approval of the State Government shall be necessary. He further submits that the RRDA has not sent any proposal for approval of appointment and there is no approval pending before the State Government. He reiterated that the recommendation/decision of the Board’s meeting of 2008 is contrary to the appointment procedure as the then Chairman of the Board was not empowered to take such decision. He further submits that the RRDA has not sent any proposal for approval of appointment and there is no approval pending before the State Government. He reiterated that the recommendation/decision of the Board’s meeting of 2008 is contrary to the appointment procedure as the then Chairman of the Board was not empowered to take such decision. He lastly submits that this Court vide its order dated 30.01.2019 has directed the answering respondent to bring on record as to whether any rule has been made under Section 6(2) of the RRDA Act or alternatively, is there any rule covering the field of staff regarding appointment and service condition. In this regard he submits that no rule has been made under the provision of Section 6 (2) of the RRDA Act and relevant rules framed by the State Government/Orders and Circulars issued by the State Government from time to time are being followed in the RRDA, Ranchi for making appointment on compassionate ground and also for regulating the other service conditions of its employees. He concluded his argument by submitting that since the appointment of the petitioner was Co-Terminus with the then Chairman- RRDA; the subsequent resolution of the Board has got no meaning in the eye of law and as such the instant writ application may be dismissed. 7. Replying to the contention made by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is no rule of the RRDA, as such, not sending the proposal/decision taken in the Board’s meeting is mala-fide. He further submits that Section 6 (2) of the Act authorizes RRDA to make appointment of employees as it feels necessary for efficient performance and by virtue of this power the petitioner was appointed and further decided to be continued. It is true that Section 6 (2) puts a rider that the appointment should be subject to such control and restriction as may be provided by rules approved by the Government and since no rule has been framed by the Government, as such the action of the respondent in not sending the Board’s resolution of 2008 is arbitrary and against settled principle of law. He further submits that seeking and grant of advice or approval is a performance of public duty and if due to neglect in performance of such duty; the appointment cannot be held null and void. He further submits that seeking and grant of advice or approval is a performance of public duty and if due to neglect in performance of such duty; the appointment cannot be held null and void. He submits that after the decision of the Board in the year, 2008, the RRDA was free to take approval but they sat over the matter. He further referred the information sought by him under RTI Act and submits that 17 appointments are treated as regular while made by Board which was not denied specifically rather it has been said by RRDA that those appointments were prior to 1981 i.e. prior to coming into force of the BRDA Act, 1974 on 25.1.1982. He concluded his argument by submitting that non-seeking of approval by the State Government cannot be a ground for non-regularization of service. It was the duty of RRDA to seek approval of the extension of service from the State Government. He further referred to the judgment passed in the case of G.S. Lamba & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1985) 2 SCC 604 and submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and also for payment of salary for the period of work done by him in pursuance to the Board’s resolution of RRDA of 2008. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein especially the decision of the State Government issued under Memo No.712 dated 16.04.2003; it appears that the petitioner was appointed on the recommendation of the then Chairman of RRDA vide order No.117/06 as contained in Memo No.1174 dated 01.09.2006 wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner is being appointed w.e.f. 01.04.2006 as a Computer Operator on the consolidated and fixed pay of Rs.5,500/- per month for discharging his duties in the Chairman’s Cell and he shall be discharging his duties till the tenure of said Chairman and on expiry of the tenure of the said Chairman, the appointment of the petitioner shall automatically end. Thus, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner was Co-Terminus with the tenure of the said Chairman. Thus, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner was Co-Terminus with the tenure of the said Chairman. It also transpires that in the said appointment letter it was also stated that if in future, any appointment to be made by RRDA; the petitioner shall have no claim for right of his appointment. The said appointment letter was issued pursuant to the office order of the Chairman dated 01.09.2006. 9. At this stage it is pertinent to refer the Memo No.712 dated 16.04.2003 of the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Co-ordination, whereby the Chairman of RRDA, Ranchi was authorized to avail the services of the personal staff to be appointed on his recommendation to be made available by the State Government till his tenure. As such, 1st appointment of the petitioner was having root in this letter. However, there is no chit of paper produced by the petitioner that the subsequent decision of the Board in 2008 regularizing the service of the petitioner was having any legal force. It transpires from record that the tenure of the office of the then Chairman-R.N. Tiwari was from 14.02.2006 to 13.02.2009 and thus the Co- Terminus appointment of this petitioner has ended on 13.02.2009. It further transpires from record that there are two sanctioned posts of the Computer Operator in the office of RRDA, Ranchi and both posts are occupied by two persons who are working under the RRDA and at present, as per the statement made in the counter affidavit, no vacancy in the office for the post of Computer Operator. 10. Even otherwise, in compliance to the order delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and also the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in other matters in respect of regularization of service; the Government of Jharkhand has framed the “Service Regularization of Staff Irregularly Appointed and Working Subordinate to Jharkhand Government Rules, 2015” for regularizing the service of the daily rated employees working under the Government of Jharkhand and its instrumentalities and autonomous Bodies. The provisions of the said 2015 Rules have been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. The provisions of the said 2015 Rules have been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 and the case of the petitioner even does not fall under the said regularization rules as stated herein above. This Court vide its order dated 30.01.2019 has directed the RRDA to bring on record as to whether any rule has been framed under Section 6 (2) of the RRDA Act or alternatively; is there any rule covering the field of staff regarding appointment and service condition. From record it transpires that till date, no rule has been made under the provision of Section 6 (2) of the RRDA Act. However, from the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent-RRDA it is clear that the relevant rules framed by the State Government and Orders/Circulars issued from time to time are being followed in the RRDA, Ranchi for making appointment and also for regulating the other service conditions of its employees. 11. At the cost of repetition, the appointment letter issued to the petitioner was pursuant to the proposal letter of the then Chairman dated 17.06.2006. This power of the Chairman was derived from the letter of Cabinet Secretariat which clearly stipulates that the facility which is to be given to the Chairman and others will be till their tenure and not beyond. As such, the resolution in the subsequent minutes of meeting of the Board is beyond the provision of any letter/circular/order etc. In the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. P.J. Kampavat & Ors. reported in (1992) 3 SCC 226 the Hon’ble Apex Court had occasion to look into a similar situation. There was a case where persons concerned were appointed directly in the office of the Chief Minister on purely temporary basis for a limited period up to the tenure of the Chief Minister. This Court held that such an appointment was purely a contractual one, and it was coterminus with that of the Chief Minister’s tenure, and such service came to an end simultaneously with the end of tenure of the Chief Minister. No separate order of termination or even a notice was necessary for putting an end to such a service. This Court held that such an appointment was purely a contractual one, and it was coterminus with that of the Chief Minister’s tenure, and such service came to an end simultaneously with the end of tenure of the Chief Minister. No separate order of termination or even a notice was necessary for putting an end to such a service. In yet another case of Chief Executive Officer, Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board and another versus K. Aroquia Radja and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 780 the Hon’ble Apex court has dealt the issue of appointment of employees who were appointed on co-terminus basis and held that co-terminus appointment is always for a particular term of the person with whom the employees is attached. Para 21 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “21. We have to note that in the present case the MLA concerned was to function as the Chairman during the course of his tenure as an MLA, and had resigned with the announcement of the election for the State Assembly. A proposal for regularisation of the coterminous employees appointed by him was directly sent to the Governor without the same being routed through the State Government. Similar such proposals have come to be rejected. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharam Pal, the requirement of being employed through proper channel could not be relaxed in an arbitrary and cavalier manner for the benefit of a few persons. This would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 12. The judgment G.S. Lamba (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as in the said case the question before the Hon’ble Apex Court was that when Rule 29(a) confers power on the controlling authority to relax any of the provisions of the 1964 Rules then whether the quota rule can be considered to be mandatory in character. The Hon’ble Apex court at the bottom of para-27 of the Judgment has held ; “…Once there is power to relax the mandatory quota rule the appointments made in excess of the quota from any given source would not be illegal or invalid but would be valid and legal as held by this Court in N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat. Therefore the promotion of the promotees was regular and legal both on account of the fact that it was made to meet the exigencies of service in relaxation of the mandatory quota rule and to substantive vacancies in service.” Thus, the Hon’ble Court held that if there is power to relax the mandatory quota rule, the appointments made in excess of the quota from any given source would not be illegal. In the instant case, there was no such power of the Board for recommending/regularizing the co-terminus appointment of the petitioner. There was neither any advertisement nor any procedural formalities for appointment was followed; rather this appointment was solely on the discretion of the then Chairman. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and the applicable provision of law and also law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for regularization; no relief can be granted to this petitioner as the same is dehors the regular procedure and rules. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.