ORDER : (Ananda Sen, J.) 1. This intracourt appeal is against the judgment dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.981 of 2020. 2. This appeal is at the instance of the State. Counsel for the appellants-State submits that the appointment of the petitioner was not proper as he was not appointed by the appointing authority and the same was not approved by the competent authority, that is why the prayer of the petitioner, praying for confirmation of his services was rejected. He submits that this fact has not been considered by learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition. 3. We have heard the counsel for the appellants-State. The facts are admitted in this case. 4. Respondent-petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in the Regional Dairy Development Office, Ranchi on adhoc basis on 29.07.1990. His appointment was extended vide order dated 13.10.1990 and time to time, it was extended. By order dated 18.12.1993, the Director, Dairy Development Directorate, Bihar, Patna, directed the Regional Joint Director of Dairy Development, South Bihar to make appointment of candidates on sanctioned and vacant posts. A Selection Committee was constituted and after deliberations, the Committee recommended the name of the petitioner along with others for the post of Typist-Clerk vide recommendations dated 28.02.1994. Petitioner also cleared the examination of 1st and 2nd paper, which was prescribed in the Muffasil Office in view of Memo No.911(2) dated 23.07.2011. Pay of the petitioner was also fixed from time to time pursuant to the 5th, 6th, 7th Pay Revision Commission Report. In the year 2000 when the State of Bihar got bifurcated and the new State of Jharkhand was formed, the petitioner was allocated State of Jharkhand. Service Book of the petitioner was duly opened. General Provident Fund was also deducted from the salary of the petitioner. The seniority list dated 14.02.1994 suggests that the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.76. Petitioner is still working as Head Clerk in the Office of the Dairy Development Department. Reference of several persons have been mentioned in the impugned order, who were appointed along with the petitioner and their services, later on, have been confirmed in the State of Bihar. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner was working continuously under the appellant, since July 1990. Reference of several persons have been mentioned in the impugned order, who were appointed along with the petitioner and their services, later on, have been confirmed in the State of Bihar. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner was working continuously under the appellant, since July 1990. The petitioner got the benefit of pay revision from time to time and his name also finds place in the seniority list prepared by the appellant. Petitioner was also allocated the State of Jharkhand. Learned Single Judge also found that the State of Jharkhand never objected, rather, accepted the petitioner that he was sent to the State of Jharkhand. Glaring aspect is that petitioner’s service book was also opened and maintained. His General Provident Fund was also being deducted. 6. The petitioner, thus, has worked for more than 35 years and still working. The respondents, at this stage, cannot take a stand that his services cannot be confirmed. Learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 and has correctly directed the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner as has been done by the State of Bihar in the case of the persons who were appointed along with the petitioner. 7. We find no illegality in the impugned judgment. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.