ORDER : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for cancel the appointment of respondent Nos. 8 to 11, which according to the petitioner, has been made illegally on the post of teachers in Madarsa Enadul Uloom, Chandrapara, District- Pakur, without publishing the advertisement properly in the local newspaper. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were vacant post in Madarsa Enadul Uloom, Chandrapara, District- Pakur (hereinafter to be referred as “the Madarsa”). Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 have been appointed by back door means without there being any proper advertisement. The entire misdeed has been done by the Secretary and the Head Moulvi. Their kith and kin has been appointed to the post of teacher in the Madarsa. He submitted that respondent No. 8- Md. Mohjamil Haque has been appointed who in fact, is the brother-in-law of Noor Jamal Sk., the Secretary of the Madarsa. Respondent No. 10- Mohidur Rahman has also been appointed, who is the nephew of the head Moulvi of the Madarsa. It is further submitted that one Sahiba Naaj and the respondent No. 11- Abdul Tayyab Ansari have been appointed who are the kith and kin of Md. Yadim Sk., a most influential and powerful person of the locality and close friend of Secretary and the Head Moulvi. It is specific contention that the advertisement was not published in the local newspaper, rather it was published in Ranchi Edition of Urdu Newspaper namely Farooki Tanzim. Though the advertisement was published in Prabhat Khabar, but not in the Edition of Pakur District where the Madarsa is situated. It is his grievance that the appointment of respondent Nos. 8 to 11 is bad and illegal. 4. Respondent No. 2 filed counter affidavit stating that since there was vacancy of teachers in the Madarsa and the Secretary sought permission from the Jharkhand Academic Council to advertise the said post. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, they have stated that the advertisement was published in daily Hindi Newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' Deoghar on 7.8.2016 and Daily Urdu Newspaper Faruki Tanzeem on 10.8.2016. After the applications were received, the Governing Council of the Madarsa held a meeting on 30.8.2016 where the District Education Officer was also present. For Intermediate teacher, six applicants appeared for the written and oral test. After the applications were received, the Governing Council of the Madarsa held a meeting on 30.8.2016 where the District Education Officer was also present. For Intermediate teacher, six applicants appeared for the written and oral test. For the Maulvi, seven applicants appeared for the written and oral test. For the Aalim, six applicants appeared for the written and oral test. Paragraph 12 of counter affidavit reads as under:- “12. That it is stated that thereafter a meeting of Governing council was held on 15.9.2016, in which, the applicant who stood first in the written and oral examination were selected, which are as follows:- a. Aalim: Md. Mojammil Haque, son of Abdul Haque. b. Maulvi: Sabiha Naj, son of Enamul Haque. c. Inter Trained: Mohidur Rahman, son of Najul Shaikh. d. Matric Trained: Abdul Taiyaab Ansari, S/o Abdul Kalam Ansasri.” 5. There was a complaint demanding high level enquiry. The enquiry was held and it was found that the allegations were not true. Thereafter,the appointment was approved. It has been stated that no illegality has been committed in the said appointment. 6. During course of argument, the main thrust given by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that the posts were not widely advertised and only to ensure that kith and kin of the Members of the Madarsa be appointed, the advertisement was not published in newspaper of Pakur, where the Madarsa is situated. It is specific case that the advertisement of the said appointment was published in the widely circulated newspaper “Prabhat Khabar”, but in Godda Edition and not in Pakur Edition. 7. Considering this argument, this court ordered to implicate the Newspaper “Prabhat Khabar as party respondent. The authority of the Newspaper appeared and filed their counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, in paragraph 4, they have stated that the Madarsa gave the order to publish the advertisement in Godda Edition of Prabhat Khabar. The photocopy of the said paper was also annexed by them. From the affidavit of the Prabhat Khabar, it is quite clear that the advertisement was published in Godda Edition only and not in Pakur Edition. Thus, from the affidavit, it is quite clear that the advertisement, which was published, was not in Pakur Edition but in the Godda Edition, though the same should have been published in Pakur Edition where the Madarsa is situated. Thus, from the affidavit, it is quite clear that the advertisement, which was published, was not in Pakur Edition but in the Godda Edition, though the same should have been published in Pakur Edition where the Madarsa is situated. The allegation of the petitioner that only to help the kith and kin of the Members of the Madarsa, the advertisement for appointment was not published in properly, seems to be correct. 8. The allegation, which the petitioner has levelled is that kith and kin of the Members of the Madarsa have been appointed. Paragraph 5 of the writ petition is the details of the persons, who have been appointed and their relationship with the Members of the Madarsa. It has been submitted that respondent No. 8- Md. Mohjamil Haque has been appointed who in fact, is the brother-in-law of Noor Jamal Sk., the Secretary of the Madarsa. Respondent No. 10- Mohidur Rahman has also been appointed, who is the nephew of the head Moulvi of the Madarsa. It is further submitted that one Sahiba Naaj and respondent No. 11- Abdul Tayyab Ansari have been appointed who are the kith and kin of Md. Yadim Sk., a most influential and powerful person of the locality and close friend of Secretary and the Head Moulvi. 9. Thus, the specific allegation is leveled against respondent Nos. 8 to 11. When there is specific allegation levelled, the same has to be replied. The reply of Paragraph 5 of the writ petition is at Paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit. There is no specific denial of the aforesaid allegation, rather it has been stated in paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit that the facts therein is disputed. The specific allegation needs specific denial, which is missing here. 10. Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 also appeared through their counsel and filed their counter affidavit. They only stated that the appointments are good and there is no illegality. They stated that the advertisement for the said appointment was published properly. Reply of Paragraph 5 of the writ petition is not specific as they have only disputed the aforesaid fact. In paragraph 16 of their counter affidavit, they have dealt with the allegation of paragraph 5 of the writ petition, where the allegation of kith and kin has been made therein. Reply of Paragraph 5 of the writ petition is not specific as they have only disputed the aforesaid fact. In paragraph 16 of their counter affidavit, they have dealt with the allegation of paragraph 5 of the writ petition, where the allegation of kith and kin has been made therein. They have only stated that Jharkhand Academic Council conducted an enquiry and they have given clean chit to appointments made by the Madarsa. This reply clearly states that they admit the allegation levelled against the petitioner. The brother-in-law of the Secretary, nephew of the head Moulvi and kith and kin of the influential person, who is close friend of Secretary and the Head Moulvi of the Madarsa have been appointed. 11. The aforesaid fact clearly brings to the notices of this Court that irregularity and illegality has been committed and also to facilitate nepotism, proper advertisement was not published in Daily Newspaper Pakur Edition. The appointment of kith and kin in clandestine manner has been done in this case, which has been substantiated by the petitioner. Thus, I hold the entire appointment of respondent Nos. 8 to 11 is bad and needs to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the appointment of respondent Nos. 8 to 11 is set aside. The respondents are directed to re-advertise the posts in widely circulated newspaper having circulation in Pakur District also, thereafter fill up the said posts.