P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.:–Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:—

“I. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the Memo No. 1460 dated 28.08.2020 issued under the signature of respondent District Magistrate so far it relates to the petitioners, who are the wards of Ex-Chaukidars/Dafadars, whose name appears at Serial No. 3, 1, 6, 9 and 5 respectively, whereby and whereunder the applications of petitioners for appointment on the basis of Chaukidar after granting voluntary retirement from service have been refused on the sole ground that fathers of petitioners were appointed after 06.11.1991 by the order of respondent Senior Superintendent of Police and accordingly, appointment letters issued to them under the signature of S.S.P. and as such their initial appointment appears not legal as the Appointing Authority of Chaukidar/Dafadar is District Magistrate but in the case of fathers of petitioners the Appointing Authority is S.S.P. and as such their applications for appointment have been rejected.

II. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for commanding the respondent authority especially respondent District Magistrate to held the appointment of fathers of petitioners as valid as they were appointed on different dates in the year 1992 and such by taking into consideration the power of delegation conferred upon District Magistrate under Clause 21 of appoint any subordinate especially Superintendent of Police of concerned district to make appointment on the post of Chaukidar and Dafadar and as such taking into consideration this clause appointment letters were issued to the fathers of the petitioners and they were held validly appointed and also may be become entitled for retiral benefit and other benefits accrued to the persons appointed and working on the post of Chaukidar.

III. For any other relief or reliefs for which petitioners are found entitled in the eyes of law and in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. Petitioners, above named, have been denied appointment to the post of Chaukidar/Dafadar with reference to date of their father's voluntary retirement read with the scheme of appointment on compassionate (Voluntary retirement scheme). Petitioners’ father were appointed by the then Senior Superintendent of Police on 27.03.1992. The power of appointing in respect of Chaukidar/Dafadar post as on 27.03.1992 was vested with the District Magistrate. Therefore, order of appointment issued to father of Petitioner no. 1 on 27.03.1992, father of Petitioner no. 2 on 01.08.1992, father of Petitioner no. 3 on 26.03.1992, father of Petitioner no. 4 on 02.04.1992 and father of Petitioner no. 5 on 09.04.1992 are not in consonance with the powers vested to appoint Chaukidar. On this count, petitioners have been denied appointment that order of appointment of petitioners’ father dated 27.03.1992, 01.08.1992, 26.03.1992, 02.04.1992 and 09.04.1992 respectively was not in consonance with the relevant power vested to the District Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the Apex Court's decision in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh reported in (2018) 15 SCC 463 (para 20 and 30).

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as long as order of appointment issued to the petitioner's father, as above, has not been withdrawn/cancelled/modified. Order of appointment issued to the petitioner's father is intact even to this day. Even though such order of appointment was issued by incompetent authority. The same has given effect to. Therefore, on technical ground, petitioners shall not be denied appointment to the post of Chaukidar/Dafadar in terms of the policy decision of the State.

6. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

7. Undisputed facts are that each of the petitioners’ father were appointed as Chaukidar/Dafadar by the then Superi