IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.2039 of 2010 1.Budhan Singh son of Late Gopi Sigh, resident of village-Bairi Tola, Mathurapur,Police Station-Sanjhauli, District-Rohtas. 2.Rang Bahadur Singh son of Late Raghubir Singh, resident of village- Karmain Kala,Post office-Karmaini, P.S. Sanjhauli, District- Rohtas. 3. Dudh Nath Ram son of Rajdeo Ram, resident of village-Masona, Post office-Siwrua, Police Station-Sanjhauli, District- Rohtas. 4. Shailik Ram son of Jagan Ram, Village-Siberua, Police station- Sanjhauli, District-Rohtas. …..Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home(Police),Government of Bihar, Mail Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram. 6. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bikramganj, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bikramganj, District-Rohtas. 8. The Inspector of Police, Sanjhauli,P.S.Bikramganj, District-Rohtas. 9.The officer Incharge, Sanjhauli P.S., District-Rohtas at Sasaram. …….Respondents/Respondents. ---------------------------------- 3 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. Perused the order of the writ Court. The appellants approached the Writ Court long back in the year 1996 for seeking relief of regularization/ regular appointment on the post of Chowkidar. Earlier such posts existed as part of Rural Police Scheme governed by Bihar Chowkidari Manual. However, this post was made a public post 2 under the State Government w.e.f. from 1.1.1990. The basis of the claim is a policy decision dated 6th October 1991, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition. By that policy decision, the Government took compassionate view on the demand made by Associations of Chowkidars/ Dafadars and granted regularization on the post of Chowkidar to such Substitute (Ewazi) chowkidars, who were working from before 1.1.1990 and were eligible for appointment under the old system on the principle of heredity on account of belonging to family of the erstwhile chowkidars. It was also decided that if for some reason, the post had remained vacant due to inaction etc. or any reason, then one opportunity will be given to the widow of the deceased chowkidars to recommend for appointment of son or brother so that member of the earlier entitled family may be appointed on the post of Chowikdar. There is no dispute that after 1.1.1990, the post of Chowkidar become a public post under the State Government. In many cases this Court has held that recruitment to such a post after 1.1.1990 is 3 required to be made as per Rules, regulations and policy decisions applicable for requirement to any such Government post. The appellants claim parity of treatment with the Substitute (Ewazi) chowkidars, who were eligible for being appointed as Chowkidars on account of policy or rule governing recruitment prior to 1991.However, admittedly, the appellants were working as Substitute Chowkidars without having the required eligibility on the basis of erstwhile rules of recruitment as they did not belong to the family of the deceased or erstwhile chowkidars. In our considered view, the treatment vide Annexure-4 being given to some others who were eligible for appointment to post of Chowkidar under erstwhile rules and scheme can not be claimed by the petitioners for getting entry on the post of Chowkidars after 1.1.1990 without competing with the other general candidates. There is intelligible differentia between the appellants and the class of persons, who were earlier eligible for priority in consideration and appointment 4 and therefore favoured under the policy decision contained in Annexure-4. In our view, the writ Court was correct in appreciating the legal proposition that if the petitioners now have eligibility, they may join the recruitment process as and when it begins. They can be recruited to the post in question only after competing with the others. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, we are unable to grant any relief to the appellants. The appeal is dismissed. Sudha (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)