SURENDRA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant's service has been terminated on the ground that he has been appointed without following any procedure meaning thereby their appointment is purely back-door entry. In the second last paragraph of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it has been observed that nothing has been shown by the petitioners that their appointment was made adopting any valid procedure, and that appointment made without observing any procedure could not be said to be a legal appointment.

(2.) Even in this appeal, we have not been shown whether there was any public advertisement or invitation of names from employment exchange or any other legal procedure has been followed in making such appointment.

(3.) When the petitioners approached this Court in an equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they could not be permitted to rely purely upon the procedure for termination. They were, in addition to this, required to demonstrate that their appointments had some semblance of validity or legality. In our opinion, a writ Court is totally justified in refusing to perpetrate illegality on mere technicalities of procedure.