JUDGMENT :

Part III of the Constitution of India, which deals with fundamental rights, has its own special status in our constitutional scheme. Article 13(2) of the Constitution declares that State shall not make any law which takes away or breaches the rules conferred by this part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void. The expression ‘law’ for the purpose of sub-clause (2) of Article 13 has been explained in sub-clause (a) of Article 13(3) to include any ordinance/order/bye-law/rule/regulation/notification/custom or uses.

2. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution are heart and soul of the Constitution of India. Whereas Article 14 prohibits the State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, to deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India, Article 21 prohibits deprivation of life or personal liberty of a person except according to the procedure established by law. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16 is, manifestly, an incident to or an instance of Article 14. The scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to a person has witnessed immense transformation through judicial pronouncements. Complete denial of equal opportunity for citizens to participate in the process of selection for appointment against Class-IV posts under the State, whether will amount not only to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but Article 21 too, is a question which also needs a revisit in the background of Article 39(a) under Chapter IV of the Constitution which lays down the principles of policy to be followed by the State and requires the State to direct its policy towards securing that citizens ‘equally’ have the right to ‘adequate means of livelihood’; in the present matter, where the State contemplates to fill up vacancies by such persons only who had been given opportunity to work as daily wage employees at some point of time, without following any selection procedure and without giving other similarly situated persons, a fair and equal opportunity to seek employment on daily wage basis.

3. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489, the Supreme Court in unequivocal terms declared that where the Government is dealing with public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual; deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standards or norms, which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The Supreme Court held that if the Government departs from such standards or norms in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. Keeping in mind the said exposition of law and the constitutional mandate under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the controversy, which has been raised in the present matter, has to be looked into.

4. Since all the writ applications arise out of the same selection process, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present order and judgment. The facts have been taken from CWJC No. 16812 of 2019.

5. What has transpired on the basis of the pleadings on record and submissions made on behalf of the parties that a system has developed for filling up Class-IV posts in the collectorates in the State of Bihar on the basis of panel of daily wage workers under the collectorate. I must record here that in respon