IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.80 of 2010 1. CHANDRIKA RAI SON OF SRI DEO NATH RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SAGHAR SULTANPUR TOLA MALIKPURA, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN 2. UMA SHANKAR MANJHI SON OF RAM JANAM MANJHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAHARKOLA, P.S. BASANTPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN ……..APPELLANTS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …………..RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Bamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.C. to AAG 9 2 19.1.2011 Heard Mr. Bamdeo Pandey for the appellants, and learned AC to AAG 9 for the respondents. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 12.11.2009, passed in C.W.J.C.No.14414 of 2009, whereby writ petition has been dismissed. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The fathers of the two writ petitioners were Chaukidar in their respective villages. After retirement of the two Chaukidars, applications were filed for appointment of the writ petitioners in their places on the strength of the circular dated 4.3.1997, which, inter alia, provides that 2 in the event of retirement of the Chaukidar, he is entitled to nominate one person of his family in his place as one-time measure. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that such an approach amounts to appointment on descent which is impermissible in view of the provisions of the Constitution. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the State Government is bound to follow its own policy decision for the purpose of appointment which is enforceable in law. The learned Single Judge has not noticed the circular dated 4.3 1997. He relies upon the judgment of learned Single Judge in Anjani Kumar Sinha & Ors Vs State of Bihar & Ors, 1989 PLJR 130. 4. Learned Government counsel supports the order of the learned Single Judge. He submits that the circular has in effect been set aside by a learned Single Judge in Suresh Prasad Kushwaha Vs State of Bihar & Ors, 2006(2) PLJR 106. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the circular dated 4.3 1997, 3 does provide for appointment of the nominee of a Chaukidar after his retirement from his family, perhaps as one-time measure in one family. Though the circular itself has not been considered by the learned Single Judge in Suresh Prasad Kushwaha (supra), but he has come to the conclusion that such an approach is impermissible in law and is hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. He has also held that the post of Chaukidar has become a government servant w.e.f. 1.1.1990, and, therefore, all appointments to the post of Chaukidar have to measure up to the requirements of the Constitution. 6. We agree with the view taken in Suresh Prasad Kushwaha (supra). Law is well settled that all public employment in the country is a national wealth and all eligible citizens should be unrestricted access to the same which is possible only if the vacancy is widely advertised, and every eligible candidate gets the opportunity to apply for the same for consideration of his case. The impugned circular is undoubtedly based on descent and falls foul Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and has to be set aside. 4 KHAN 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Anjani Kumar Sinha (supra). That dealt with cases of regularization of employee working on casual or ad hoc basis for a long time. The view taken therein has now been sup-planted by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Uma Devi 3 & Ors, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. 8. In the result, we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal as well as writ petition are dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J) (S.P.Singh,J)