ORDER :

1. The case run in the special leave petition[SLP] did not call for leave to prefer appeal being granted; hence, we had dismissed the special leave petition with a short order dated 19th March, 2025. However, immediately after such order was dictated, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel who represented the petitioner had urged us to consider the desirability of penning a detailed opinion. Having regard to a couple of points raised by Mr. Sankarnarayanan, which indeed appeared to be important, we had the occasion to look into the SLP and his written notes of arguments during recess. Sometime later in the day, accepting Mr. Sankarnarayanan's request, we had informed him of our inclination to assign some reasons in support of the order of dismissal of the SLP. However, the short order having been uploaded on the same day, the detailed reasons are now provided in this opinion which is to be read with the order dated 19th March, 2025.

2. The challenge in the SLP is to a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2023 of a Division Bench of the High Court[High Court of Judicature at Patna] dismissing an intra-court appeal[LPA No. 508 of 2022] of the respondent no.7[Devmuni Paswan].

3. In the pre-constitutional set-up, the practice in Bihar was to appoint village chaukidars (village watchmen) for lifetime who used to work without any leave or retirement. During his illness or absence, any of his family members would assist him in performance of his duties; and when he died or became infirm, usually his family member nominated by him would take over the functions of a chaukidar, though the post was not strictly hereditary [see: Surendar Paswan vs. State of Bihar , (2010) 6 SCC 680 .

4. The father of the respondent no.7, who was a chaukidar, had applied for appointment of his son, i.e., the respondent no.7, as a chaukidar in terms of the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014[BCC (A) Rules]. However, such application was rejected since the father of the respondent no.7 had made the application after his retirement. This triggered a writ petition[CWJC No. 6471 of 2021

] by the aggrieved respondent no.7, which was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court on 25th August, 2022. It is the said order that has been upheld by the Division Bench vide the impugned judgment and order.

5. The SLP is at the instance of a registered trade union. The petitioning union was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court, either before the Single Judge or the Division Bench. It claims to represent members who are in position to claim benefits flowing from the BCC (A) Rules. Proviso (a) to sub-rule (7) of Rule 5 of the BCC (A) Rules[the offending proviso], introduced by way of an amendment in 2014, ordains that any person working in the cadre of chaukidar would be at liberty, a month prior to his retirement, to nominate his dependent kin for appointment in his place as chaukidar. The Division Bench proceeded to hold the offending proviso to be contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, consequently, struck it down. As a sequitur, it was also held that the application of the respondent no.7's father for grant of benefit of employment to the respondent no.7 in accordance with Rule 5 of the BCC (A) Rules does not arise.

6. The primary contention of the petitioning union is that the offending proviso not being under challenge in the writ petition or in the appeal of the respondent no.7, the Division Bench clear