IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16519 of 2001 (1) SUDHIR KUMAR son of late Babujee Mandal, Resident of village and P.O. Rani Patti, PS.Kumarkhand, Dist-Madhepura (2) Sanju Soren, son of Sri Hari Soren, Resident of Village- Godhiya Ghat, P.O.Joregama, PS-Murliganj, Dist-Madhepura. (3) Rajeshwar Mandal, son of Sri Bhikhar Mandal, resident of village-Sadhua, P.O.- Tulsibari, P.S.and Dist- Madhepura. (4) Shyam Lal Soren, son of Sri Chutka Soren, resident of village, Pokhram, P.O.Pokhram, via-Budharna, P.S.Murliganj, Dist, Madhepura. (5) Bhupendra Thakur, son of Sri Satya Narayan Thakur, resident of village-Jittapur, P.O.Jittapur, P.S.Murliganj, District-Madhepura (6) Barku Murmu, son of Sri Supal Murmu, Resident of village- Phkhram, P.O. Pokhram, via- Budhama, P.S. Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura. (7) Babu Lal Murmu, son of Bijal Murmu, Resident of Village- Bagharia, P.O. Dinapatti, P.S.Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura. (8) Chandra Kishore Besra, son of Deban lal Besra, resident of village and PO-Joregama, Godhiyaghat, PS-Murliganj, Dist-Madhepura. (9) Dinesh Baski, son of Sri MangalBaski, resident of village and PO, Joregama, P.S.Murliganj, dist-Madhepura. (10) Surya Narayan Tuddu son of Sri Chandra tuddu, residentof village- Sahpur, P.S. Sahpur via-Guwalpara, Dist-Madhepura. (11) BAiju Hansda, son of sri Juppa Hansda, resident of village- 2 sahpur P.o.Sahpur, via- Guwalpara, Dist-Madhepura (12) Chandra Shekar Tuddu, son of Sri Basta Tuddu resident of village and P.O. bardela P.S.Dhamdaha, Dist-Purnea. (13) Prithvi Chand Hansda son of lat Asho Hansda residet of village-Haripur Tinkonma, P.O.Haripur Kala P.S.Murliganj, Dist-Madhepura (14) Thithar Mahto son of Sri Bhagwan Mahto resident of village-Belha Ghat, P.O.Tulsiwari, P.S.Madhepura, Dist-Madhepura. (15) Renu Kumari-II, Daughter of Sri Buchchi Rai, resident of Madhepura, Ward no.6 P.O.Madhepura, P.S-and Dist- Madhepura. (16) Ganesh Murmu, son of Sri Bhubneshwar murmur, resident of village-Baghaniya, P.O.Dinat, P.S.Murliganj, Dist-Madhepura. (17) Jitendra Soren, son of Sri Thakur Soren, resident of village-Joregama, P.O.Joregama, P.S.Murliganj, Dist-Madhepura. (18) Shrawan Kumar, son of Sri Ramjee Mukhia, Resident of Village- Belhaghat,P.O.Tulsiwari, District-Madhepura. (19) Naresh Kumar Tuddu, sone of Sri Kanhai Tuddu, resident of village –Haripur Tinknma, P.O.Haripur Kala P.S. Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura. (20) Meena Kumari wife of Gorelal Tuddu, resident of village Haripur, Tinkonma, P.O.- Haripur Kala, P.S. Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura. (21) Hari Charan Murmu, son of Sri Lal Murmu, Resident of village-Ranipatti, P.O.Dibra Bazar, P.O.Murliganj, dist- Madhepura. 3 (22) Ratan Kumar Hansda son of Rupen Hansda, resident of village-Singiyan, p.O.Dibrabazar, P.S.- Murliganj, Dist-Madhepura. (23) Shankar Kumar Hembram, son of Sri Surya Narayan Hembram, Resident of village and Post- Dinapatti, P.S.-Murliganj, Dist-Madhepura. (24) Suraj Kumar Marandi, son of Sri Chhotelal Marandi, resident of village- Dinapatti, P.S.Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura………………………………………petiti -oners Versus (1)THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Home Commissioner, Govt of Bihar,Patna. (2)The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, (3)The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhepura (4)Shri Surendra Paswan, son of Shri Chano Paswan resident of Parhiya, Thuthaon, PS-Bihariganj, Dist. Madhepura (5)Shri Dev Kumar Paswan, son of Sri kapuri Paswan, resident of Thuthaon, PS-Bihariganj, Dist-Madhepura. (6)Sri Ramdeo Pasawan, son of Sri Saryug Paswan, Resident of village-and PS-Udakishunganj, Dist- Madhepura. (7)Sri Amar Nath Paswan, son of Sri Chandra Paswan, resident of village-Arajpur, P.S.-Chausa, Dist- Madhepura. (8)Shri Parmanand Paswan, son of sri Dhautal Paswan, resident of Chausa Purvi, P.S. Chausa, dist- Madhepura. (9)Md. Ismail, son of Md. Alatuddin, resident of village- Dhargaon,PS and Dist- Madhepura. (10)Shri Ram Saran Rishideo, son of sri Badrai Rishideo resident of village-Maruwaha P.S. and dist- Madhepura. (11) Sri Manik Rishideo son of sri Raudi Rishideo, resident of village-Barhi, P.S.and dist- Madhepura. (12)Sri Visheshwar Paswan, son of Sri Jamun Paswan, (Hazra)resident of village-Sukhasan Chakla, p.s. and dist- Madhepura. (13)Shri Shivendra Tanti, son of Shri Raghuni Tanti, resident of Murho Pokharia, P.S. and Dist-Madhepura. (14) Sri Bhola Rishideo, son of lat Ram Swarup Rishideo, Resident of village-Durgaon, Tola Giddha, P.S. and Dist- Madhepura. (15)Shri Mukhtar Paswan, son of sri Saryun paswan, resident of vailage-Machhbakhara, P.O.Gotaila, P.S. and Dist- Madhepura. (16)Smt.Mala Devi, wife of late Ramphal Sada, Resident of village-Ditiyahi, P.S. and Dist- Madhepura. (17)Sri Dinesh Rishidev, son of shri Maheshwari Rishideo, resident of village-Jagir, PS and Dist- Madhepura. 4 (18)Shri Ram Chandra Rishideo, son of sri Siyaram Rishideo, resident of village-Mahua, P.S.and Dist- Madhepura. (19)Sri Dilip Rishideo, son of late Hridya Rishideo, resident of village, Belokhari, P.S. Ghailadh, Dist- Madhepura. (20)Sri Rajkumar Paswan, son of sri Aghori Paswan, Resident of village- Guriya, P.S. Kumarkhand, Dist- Madhepura. (21)Sri Shrikant Paswan, son of Sri Nilesh Paswan, resident of village-Rajnigoth, P.S.-Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura. (22)Sri Jai Krishna Rishideo, son of Sri Mauji Rishideo, Resident of village-Tamat Parua, P.S.-Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura. (23)Sri Chandeshwari Paswan, son of Sri lakshmi Paswan, resident of the Villagee-Ratanpatti, p.s. Murliganj, dist- Madhepura. (24) Sri Ratan Paswan son of Sri Dah Paswan, Resident of village Rampur, P.S.Murliganj, dist- Madhepura. (25)Sri Abhinandan Paswan, son of Nemani Paswan, Resident of village-Rajnibabhangama, P.S.-Murliganj, dist- Madhepura. (26)Sri Ganesh Paswan, son of Sri Tarni Paswan, Resident of Village-Rajnibabhangama, P.S.Murliganj, District- Madhepura. (27)Sri Janardan Paswan, son of Sri Bhogi paswan, Resident of village-Shishwa, P.S.Sukhasan, P.S.Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura. (28)Sri Gajendra Paswan, son of Sri Ragho Paswan, resident of village-Khari, P.S.-Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura…………………Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners:-Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Shashidhar Jha, Advocate Mr. Mayank Shekhar, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-10 For the private Respondents:- Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate. ----------- 14/ 16-Oct-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. This dispute has a chequered career. The petitioners were appointed as Chaukidars and Dafadars sometimes in the year 1995. That appointment was challenged by other category of claimants who wanted appointment on the post of Chaukidars and Dafadars in the district of Madhepura on the basis of being 5 wards of erstwhile Chaukidars and Dafadars. They filed a writ petition bearing CWJC. No.7374 of 1995 and also raised grievance before the appropriate authorities leading to cancellation of appointment of petitioners who preferred CWJC No.1289 of 1997. Both the writ petitions were heard together and finally disposed of by order of this court dated 7.4.1997 (Annexure-7). The operative part of that order is as follows:- “ The Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa is directed to look into the matter afresh. He will give an opportunity of hearing to the appointees before he comes to any conclusion. He may also hear the petitioners of CWJC. No.7374 of 1995 through their representative. If he comes to the conclusion that there was any illegality or irregularity in making the impugned appointments, he will direct the District Magistrate, Madhepura to take steps for fresh appointment. In that event, the petitioners of CWJC.NO.7374 of 1995 will be given a chance of selection along with others (without giving them any advantage of their being the wards of the erstwhile Dafadar/Chaukidar) on merit), if on the other hand the Divisional Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the impugned appointments did not suffer from any infirmity he shall permit the petitioners of CWJC. No.1289 of 1997 to continue on the posts. With these observations and directions these two writ petitions are disposed of”. 3. After the remand by this Court the Commissioner passed certain orders against the writ petitioners which was challenged by them through another writ petition bearing CWJC. 6 No.767 of 1998 which was finally disposed of by order dated 17.9.1999 (Annexure-9). This Court by order contained in Annexure-9 held that the directions of this Court contained in Annexure-7 had not been understood and carried out. Hence, the order of the Divisional Commissioner was set aside and the matter was again remitted back to the Divisional Commissioner to pass necessary orders in terms of the directions contained in Annexure-7. The learned Commissioner passed afresh order dated 14.3.2000 contained in Annexure-10 and issued directions to the District Magistrate, Madhepura to take steps for fresh appointments following all Government instructions regarding reservations and other requirements and as directed by this Court. The petitioners in CWJC. No.7374 of 1995 were also to be given an opportunity to stake their claim. From the order of the Commissioner, it is clear that the earlier appointments made in 1995 of 32 Chaukidars and 2 Dafadars were cancelled but the District Magistrate, Madhepura had to act in accordance with law keeping in view the judgment of this Court contained in Annexure-7 dated 7.4.1997. That judgment required the District 7 Magistrate not to give any weightage to any person on account of being wards of erstwhile Chaukidars and Dafadars. It also required considering the case of the petitioners for the purpose of appointment in accordance with law. Such direction was not an empty formality and consideration required application of mind and only persons selected after due application of mind whether from the category of the present petitioners or from the other categories could have been given appointment by the District Magistrate, Madhepura. 4. The impugned order of appointment issued by the District Magistrate, Madhepura dated 31.5.2000 (Annexure-13) clearly shows that appointments have been offered to the respondents because they are eligible in terms of a Government Circular dated 20th of December, 1995 being nominees of erstwhile Dafadars/Chaukidars. The Writ petitioners have made clear averment in Paragraph-31 that the cases of writ petitioners were not considered before selecting and appointing the private respondents through impugned order contained in Annexure-13. The counter affidavit does not 8 contain any reply or denial to that assertion. To the contrary Paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit justifies non consideration of cases of the petitioners on the ground of Government Circular dated 20th December, 1995. The same has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of private respondents. 5. The original records were to be produced by the learned counsel for the State, as per his own offer recorded in earlier orders to supplement the counter affidavit. The original records shown to the court do not relate to the selection process and does not contain any material to show that cases of the petitioners were considered on equal footing as directed by the earlier order of this Court contained in Annexure-7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the policy decision of the State Govt. to adhere to Rule 35 of the Bihar Chaukidari Manual and give preference to close relations and family members of the erstwhile Chaukidar even after these posts were made public post in the year 1990 came to be challenged in the case of Shambhu 9 Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.(CWJC No.6657/03) and this Court by order dated 19.8.2003 held that the State Government or the District Magistrate would not be entitled to appoint any person as Chaukidar unless selection process is completed in accordance with Circular dated 17th of January,1990 adopting the procedure of appointment applicable to appointment of Government servants. 7. On a proper consideration of all the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties this Court finds that the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents who are rivals for appointment to the post of Chaukidars and Dafadars in the district of Madhepura has to be resolved by simply following the direction of this Court as per earlier decision contained in Annexure-7. It is also found that the impugned order contained in Annexure-13 whereby the private respondents have been selected and appointed on the post of Chaukidars is in gross violation of directions of this Court contained in Annexure-7 because the cases of the petitioners were not considered and to the contrary the private respondents were 10 selected and appointed only because they were relations or nominees of the erstwhile Chaukidars/Dafadars. In the facts of the case, the impugned order is found to be illegal and requires to be quashed. However, considering that post of Chaukidars is part of a link between the rural police and the regular police and it should not be kept vacant, the private respondents who are working on those posts by virtue of order contained in Annexure-13 are allowed to continue to work for a further period of three months. Thereafter their appointment shall stand terminated and the impugned order contained in Annexure-13 shall stand quashed. The period of three months has been granted only to enable the District Magistrate, Madhepura to initiate the process of selection and appointment against the concerned vacant posts and any other vacancy available in the District of Madhepura in accordance with law. So far as the petitioners and the private respondents are concerned their cases must be considered strictly in accordance with earlier direction by this Court contained in Annexure-7 which has been accepted by the parties for such a long 11 period. 8. With aforesaid directions and observations the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. This order shall not stand in the way of petitioners in filing representations to claim their lawful dues of DA or other nature before the concerned authorities for the period they had earlier worked as Chaukidars/Dafadars. If filed, such representations should be disposed of in accordance with law within a reasonable time. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)