Back
MANMOHAN, DIPANKAR DATTA
Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
The ratio decidendi of the case is that provisions allowing hereditary or descent-based appointments to public employment are unconstitutional as they violate the principles of equality of opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The courts have the authority to strike down such provisions, even in the absence of a direct challenge, when they are manifestly contrary to constitutional rights. Public employment must be based on fair, transparent, and merit-based processes, and any law or rule that contravenes these principles, especially by favoring hereditary claims, is invalid. Additionally, the court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot be struck down unless directly challenged; however, in exceptional cases where the unconstitutionality is apparent and fundamental rights are infringed, courts may suo motu declare such provisions void to uphold constitutional mandates.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court's final judgment and disposition. (Para 1 , 44) |
| 2. challenging a high court's dismissal of an appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on the legality of a proviso. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 4. court observations on public employment reforms. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. constitutional principles governing public appointments. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. precedent against hereditary appointments. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. division bench's authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 43) |
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of services of Chaukidars appointed on the basis of inheritance after 19.04.2010 was justified based on the orders passed by t....
Article 16 of Constitution of India talks about equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
Irregular daily wager appointments without advertisement violate Articles 14 & 16; no regularization or reinstatement even with prior equal pay directions; termination upheld as backdoor entries depr....
The termination of the LARSGESS Scheme was justified, and no person could claim a vested right or legitimate expectation under the scheme.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
