select list and direction was issued to recast the select list. Apparently as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, petitioner was found to be ineligible even at the first stage of the selection process and calling him for the viva-voce itself was not contemplated. Therefore, the selection of the petitioner itself is found to be bad in law. It is true that the petitioner had worked for quite some time during the pendency of the lis until his appointment was cancelled. But that appointment, though cannot be termed as a nullity for the purpose of the judicial work he had done during the relevant time, as far as service conditions are concerned, a wrongful appointment when cancelled cannot give any right at all. The judgments delivered by the officer is valid subject to the right of appeal by the respective parties. But as far as service conditions are concerned, in the absence of a specific rule which enables counting of such service to be tagged on with a future appointment, no such relief could be granted. Viewed in the service angle, the appointment is bad in law and has been set aside. When the appointment stands cancelled, the event relates back to the date of appointment and the petitioner cannot claim
