IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11769 of 2007 1. BECHAN PASWAN, son of late Ratneshwar Paswan, resident of village Harijan Colony, Bariyahi Bazar, P.S. Bangaon, District Saharsa 2. Indu Tanti, son of Soman Tanti, resident of village Balha Garhiya, P.S. Bangaon, District Saharsa 3. Arun Paswan, son of Sri Rameshwar Paswan, resident of village Makhar, P.S. Simri, Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa 4. Satto Paswan, son of Khakhar Paswan, resident of village Dharmsena, P.S. Saur Bazar, District Saharsa … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa … Respondents ----------- 2. 8.4.2011 Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The four petitioners have filed this joint writ application claiming the following relief: “That this is an application for issuance of a writ preferably in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents concerned to issue appointment letter to the petitioners abovenamed who have been appointed on the post of Chowkidar on „Awajee‟ or compassionate basis by District Chowkidar/ Dafadar Establishment Committee in its 2 meeting dated 21.1.2004 and 22.1.2004 in which out of total 70 candidates 52 have already been given appointment vide an order dated 27.1.2004 but these petitioners are not been given appointment without any valid reason.” Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when 70 persons were selected and recommended for appointment as Evazi Chowkidar there would be no reason to deny the same benefit to the petitioners when 52 of their counter parts had been appointed by the Collector of Saharsa District vide an office order dated 27.1.2004. Nothing more than this can be found from the writ petition, inasmuch as there is no whisper about preparation of list of 70 persons much less the list itself has been brought on record. Counsel for the petitioners in fact fairly submits that so far these four petitioners are concerned, they are not seeking appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of the bread earner in terms of the Government policy dated 5.10.2001 but in fact only as 3 Evazi Chowkidar as per the Government policy which was then prevalent prior to introduction of the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India dated 25.8.2006 for appointment from open market after following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents also have not done any better while filing their counter affidavit. They too have not denied this fact that the name of the petitioners were figuring among 70 persons and in fact there is a faint suggestion that the petitioners were not appointed only because they had not furnished certain papers. Of course a plea has been taken in the counter affidavit that after enforcement of the statutory rule dated 25.8.2006 the Collector of the District will have no power to make appointment on his own but then nothing has been said as to the number of vacancies which was available prior to 25.8.2006 and the manner of selection undertaken wherein 52 persons were appointed on the basis of same selection procedure. 4 In such a situation when both the parties have excelled each other in creating utmost confusion, all that this Court can do is to direct the Collector of Saharsa district to examine the case of the petitioners and for this purpose the petitioners are given liberty to file their representation within a period of six months which would be disposed of by the Collector of Saharsa District by a speaking order. Let it be noted that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and the Collector of Saharsa District has to apply himself on the facts and law which were then prevailing at the time of issuance of appointment letter to 52 persons and denial of the same to the petitioners. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/