AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges the order in CWJC No. 18912 of 2011 which was disposed of by a common judgment in a batch of writ petitions. Learned counsel for the appellant before us submits that one of the writ petitions disposed of; CWJC No. 20511 of 2011 was also appealed against. Therein a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1644 of 2014 by a judgment dtd. 6/12/2021 considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Devendra Sharma, (2020) 15 SCC 466 and directed consideration of whether the writ petitioner's appointment is illegal or irregular.

(2.) We have gone through Devendra Sharma (supra) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue in the background of the binding precedent in State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. There was a distinction drawn in so far as invalid/wrong/illegal/irregular selections. In so far as illegal selections are concerned, it was held that there was nothing further to be done specifically following the ratio of the judgment in Umadevi (supra); when such appointments were made without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and without any method of recruitment. Such appointments were found to be backdoor entries, a clear act of nepotism and favouritism which could not have been sustained on any judicial standard. It was also held that such illegal appointment is a result of only arbitrary process.

(3.) We have to decide whether the present case warrants a consideration where the appellant's appointment is illegal or irregular. We first notice the facts of CWJC No. 20511 of 2011 which was noticed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 29 which reads as follows: