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 :
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].
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
5. The SLP is at the instance of a registered
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
