The dispensing of services of Chaukidars appointed on the basis of inheritance after 19.04.2010 was justified based on the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the constitutional mandate of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The case has been listed under the heading for Orders (with defects) with the office note that defect nos. 1 and 7 still exists.

2. Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as defect no. 1 is concerned it relates to payment of authentication fee of Rs. 10/-, which shall be removed in course of day. So far defect no. 7 is concerned, it has been submitted that the same may be ignored as the same relates to filing of all the annexures as annexed with the writ petition with the instant memo of appeal.

3. This Court considering the fact that the instant memo of appeal has been placed with the record of writ petition, as such defect no. 7 is ignored.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing at this stage.

5. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against common order dated 21.06.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7139 of 2016, by which the case of the appellants has been disposed of in terms of order dated 09.08.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 196 of 2012 with L.P.A. No. 404 of 2012, in which, order dated 17.11.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007 [Nandan Lohra Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] has been upheld.

6. It is the case of the writ petitioners-appellants that they were duly appointed on the post of Chaukidar vide Memo No. 05 dated 06.09.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, as per decision taken by the District Level Chaukidar Selection Committee in its meeting on 21.06.2011 held under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in pursuant to Government Memo No. 11287 dated 20.12.1995 issued by the Home Department of Bihar and Government Memo No. 3206 dated 15.06.2002 issued by the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioners-appellants after their appointment on the said post joined their respective Police Stations and continued to perform their duties.

7. The Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 23.05.2014 directed the Deputy Commissioners of all the districts of the State of Jharkhand, enclosing therewith copy of order dated 17.11.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007 [Nandan Lohra vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] to stay the matter related to the appointment of dependent/nominee of the Chaukidar/Dafadar, who retired after 01.01.1990 as one time exception.

8. Thereafter, the Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand issued letter dated 23.12.2015 directing the Deputy Commissioners of all the districts of State of Jharkhand to show cause to all the Chaukidar having been appointed being the dependant nominee of Chaukidar/Dafadar, who retired after 01.01.1990 as one time exception, as to why they should not be terminated from service in compliance of order dated 17.11.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007 [Nandan Lohra vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors].

9. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 09.08.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, the petitioners-appellants and other similarly situated chaukidars were terminated from services giving reference of order dated 09.03.2016 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 1048 of 2016 arising out of L.P.A. No. 437 of 2014 that allowing those Chaukidar/dafadar who have been appointed between 19.04.2010 to 17.11.2011 on the basis of nomination/hereditary basis is contrary to rule and Jharkhand Chaukidar Gradation Rules, 2015.

10. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioners-appellants have approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7139 of 2016, which was disposed of by common order dated 21.06.2022 by which the case of the appellants has been disposed of in terms of order dated 09.08.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 196 of 2012 with L.P.A. No. 404 of 2012, in which, order dated 17.11.20211 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2001 [Nandan Lohra Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] has been upheld, against which, the instant intra-court appeal has been filed.

11. At the outset, learned counsel for