Back
2010 (3) Supreme 350
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran ,R M Lodha and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Surender Paswan & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Bihar & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3457. of 2010
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.13096/2009]
Decided on : 19-04-2010
Facts of the Case :
An Advertisement for appointment on post of Chowkidars/Daffedars was published herein in the instant case.Selections were made and selected candidates respondents 4 to 27 and five others were appointed as Chowkidars/Daffedars and sent for training .A Circular was issued by State Government, after consideration of the pending demands of Bihar State Chowkidar/Daffedar Association, that on the retirement of a Chowkidar/Daffedar after 10.1.1990, his legal heir who is his nominee, that is, widow, wife, son, brother, nephew or daughter’s son would be appointed in his post, as an exception to the general rule of recruitment.Appellants, claiming to be the family members of erstwhile Chowkidars/Daffedars, filed writ Petition challenging appointments of respondents 4 to 27, contending that they ought to have been appointed in view of the Circular dated 20.12.2005. As a result, respondents 4 to 27 who had been appointed in pursuance of a selection process, were terminated from service by cancelling their appointment.Writ petition thereagainst was filed by respondents .Both writ petitions, that is the writ petition filed by the appellants in 1995 and the writ petition filed by respondents 4 to 27 in 1997 were disposed of by a common order dated 7.4.1997, holding that the cancellation of the appointment of respondents 4 to 27 was illegal.
Findings of the Court :
Held in view of the order dated 7.4.1997 having attained finality, appellants could not claim any right to be appointed as legal heirs/nominees of erstwhile Chowkidars/Daffedars. Hence question of either examining validity of the Circular dated 20.12.1995 or considering whether appointment of appellants was in terms of the said Circular, did not arise. In compliance with the order dated 7.4.1997, the Divisional Commissioner, Kosi, considered the validity of the appointment of respondents 4 to 27 and found that there were several irregularities in their appointments . Appeal was disposed of with directions that direction contained in the High Court’s order dated 7.4.1997 to hold fresh selection process for the posts of Chowkidars is reiterated. Having regard to the fact that the Bihar Chowkidar Gradation Rules, 2006 had come into force, the selections would be done by the Selection Committee constituted as per the said Rules, in accordance with said rules, instead of by the District Collector. Appellants and respondents 4 to 27 held entitled to apply for the post, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the said Rules. However, age relaxation shall be given in the case of appellants and respondents 4 to 27 and they will be entitled to apply, irrespective of their present age, subject to fulfillment of eligibility requirements. Respondents 1 to 3 were directed to initiate the process of selection and complete the same within six months and till such selection and appointment, the present incumbents will be entitled to continue as Chowkidars purely on ad hoc basis.
JUDGMENT
R.V.Raveendran, J. —
Leave granted.
2.This matter relates to the appointment of Chowkidars (village watchmen) in Madhepura District, Bihar. The appellants allege that in the pre-constitutional set-up, the practice in Bihar was to appoint village Chowkidars for lifetime who used to work without any leave or retirement. During his illness or absence, any of his family members would assist him in performance of his duties; and when he died or became infirm, usually his family member nominated by him would take over the functions of Chowkidar, though the post was not strictly hereditary. In the post- constitutional set-up, there was a gradual change in the village administration and several lifetime or hereditary or semi-hereditary appointments gave way to regular public service with appointments based on equal opportunity. This Court in Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India,1 [1987 (1) SCC 631] held that an opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all citizens equally; that any preference shown in the matter of public employment on the ground of descent alone was unconstitutional; and that any provision which conferred a preferential right to appointment on the descendents or other relatives of persons either in service or persons who retired from service, merely because they happened to be the children or wards of such employees, would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution.
3.The post of Chowkidar was included in Class IV service of the State Government vide proceedings of the State Government dated 20.3.1990. On 3.10.1994, an advertisement for appointment on the post of Chowkidars/Daffedars was published as per the order of the District Magistrate, Madhepura. Selections were made on 1.8.1995. On 14.8.1995, the selected candidates ( respondents 4 to 27 and five others), were appointed as Chowkidars/Daffedars and sent for training in September, 1995.
4.When matters stood thus, on 20.12.1995, a Circular was issued by the State Government, after consideration of the pending demands of Bihar State Chowkidar/Daffedar Association, that on the retirement of a Chowkidar/Daffedar after 10.1.1990, his legal heir who is his nominee, that is, widow, wife, son, brother, nephew or daughter’s son would be appointed in his post, as an exception to the general rule of recruitment. It was further provided that there would be no direct appointment of Daffedar but Chowkidars will be promoted to the post of Daffedar. It also provided that on the death of a Chowkidar, one of his legal heirs will be appointed on compassionate grounds.
5.The appellants, claiming to be the family members of erstwhile Chowkidars/Daffedars, filed CWJC No.7374/1995, challenging the appointments of respondents 4 to 27, contending that they ought to have been appointed in view of the Circular dated 20.12.2005. They claimed that as and when their predecessors in the family who were working as village Chowkidars ceased to function for whatsoever reason, they had stepped into the shoes as village Chowkidars between the years 1990 and 1995. The appellants also gave a representation to the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievances. As a result, respondents 4 to 27 who had been appointed in pursuance of a selection process, were terminated from service on 21.1.1997 by cancelling their appointment, without giving them even an opportunity to show-cause. Feeling aggrieved, respondents 4 to 27 filed CWJC No.1289 of 1997.
6.Both writ petitions, that is the writ petition filed by the appellants in 1995 and the writ petition filed by respondents 4 to 27 in 1997 were disposed of by a common order dated 7.4.1997 quashing the order dated 21.1.1997, holding that the cancellation of the appointment of respondents 4 to 27 herein was illegal. As a consequence, the High Court also issued the following directions :
“The Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa is directed to look in the matter afresh. He will give an opportunity of hearing to the appointees befor
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
