- (1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred mainly for getting appointment to the post of Typist-cum-Clerk, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 1st October, 2011, which is at Annexure-12 to the memo of petition, whereby, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed on 1st October, 2004 as a Peon up to 31st March, 2005 and thereafter, his services were extended and subsequently, the petitioner was also given the post of Typist-cum-Clerk and, thereafter, by virtue of the impugned order, his services have been brought to an end.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had been appointed by way of back-door entry in the public employment. Never any advertisement was given for the post, which was given to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to be appointed on a public post, without there being a public advertisement, nor the petitioner has competed with other similarly situated candidates and, therefore, his very appointment as a peon was illegal and similarly his further appointment to the post of Typist-cum-Clerk was also illegal, because for the said post also, there was no public advertisement and for the second post also, he has never competed with others and, therefore, the employees appointed through back-door entry, should immediately be terminated and their services should be brought to an end. Moreover, the petitioner was employed on contract basis, looking to the public exigency and public need for the time being and hence, such type of appointment cannot be given any statutory right in the petitioner nor it creates any obligation also on the part of the respondents and, thus, no writ of mandamus may be issued upon the respondents.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons:-- (i) The present petitioner was appointed by way of back-door entry in the public employment. Without any public advertisement, the petitioner was appointed as a Peon with the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, by order at Annexure-1. Jharkhand Public Service Commission is taking examinations for public employments and, thus, such a body ought not to have appointed such type of persons, without there being any public advertisement. (ii) Looking to the order at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition, it further appears that the petitioner was appointed only for a period, running from 1st October, 2004 to 31st March, 2005. Thus, such type of appointment is not accruing any right in the petitioner nor it creates any legal obligation on the part of the respondents. It further appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioner was thereafter, appointed as a Typist-cum-Clerk vide order dated 4th June, 2008, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition. This appointment is also by way of back-door entry. Neither any public advertisement was given for this post nor any legal procedure for appointment was followed and, thus, the petitioner was appointed illegally on this post. Moreover, looking to this appointment also, it appears that the same was on contract basis and only for a certain period and, therefore, rightly, the order at Annexure-12 to the memo of petition, which is dated 1st October, 2011, has been passed for bring to an end the services of the present petitioner. In fact, those institutions, which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, ought not to have appointed any employee, without there being a public advertisement, without there being test/interview, without giving chance to other similarly situated persons, who are eager for getting public employment. Persons, appointed through back-door entry, are curtailing the rights of the citizens to get public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. (iii) It appears that the petitioner has been appointed by way of back-door entry and, as such, he should go out in the same way, without following any procedure of law. There is no legal right vested in the petitioner for getting employment as Typist-cum-Clerk. (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as stated in paragraph no. 27 of the memo of petition, there are few more employees, who are still working with the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and, therefore, the respondents must maintain equality in illegality. This argument is also not accepted by this Court, because Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be observed for maintaining equality in illegality. Those, who are appointed illegally, their services can also be brought to an end by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, but, merely because some persons are still working, who have also been appointed by way of back-door entry, their continuation in employment, does not give any legitimate right to the petitioner to continue on the post, in question. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.;