AMIRI JHA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

further confirmed by the fresh impugned order of termination at annexure-1 of the writ petition where the recital in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not appointed by the competent authority. What logically follows from this is that the contention of the petitioner that he came to be appointed after an advertisement and process of selection stands admitted by the respondents 6 also. If is an irregular appointment and respondents did not wish to regularize him, they were bound to proceed against those who appointed the petitioner irregularly simultaneously. If the petitioner has to go, such persons must also go. This Court holds as such because this Court finds that the petitioner is not an illegal appointee, but an irregular appointee in terms of the stand of the respondents themselves. He was, therefore, fully entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Division Bench. The impugned order at annexure-1, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, is set aside. The petitioner stands reinstated. The writ application is allowed. The respondents shall be at liberty to re- examine the issues, if they so wish, but they shall proceed strictly with the directions of this Court as contained herein. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)