IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.66 of 2010 1. BIDYA NAND SINGH S/O HIRA R/O VILL.- BITHWA P.S. DAWATH DISTT.- ROHTAS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (ROHTAS), SASARAM 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BIKRAMGANJ ROHTAS 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTT.- ROHTAS 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT.- ROHTAS 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DAWATH DISTT.- ROHTAS 7. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DAWATH POLICE STATION, DISTT.- ROHTAS ******** 2 13/05/2010 The petitioner has filed this writ application praying therein that he should be considered for appointment to the post of Chowkidar as he had worked on Awazi, daily wages from 1985 to 1995 in Dawath Police Station, Rohtas. The petitioner had filed a writ petition earlier before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 18.03.1998. The order contained in Annexure-1 indicates that the petitioner had withdrawn the writ application in view of the statement made at paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. Paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit has not been quoted or annexed in the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 3638 of 2003 which was disposed of by order dated 29.07.2003. The petitioner withdrew the writ application with liberty to pursue the petitioner’s case 2 before the administrative authorities including the District Magistrate. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is despite the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing his remedies, no order has been passed by the District Magistrate appointing the petitioner as Chowkidar in view of the Government decision contained in memo no. 807 dated 30.03.1994. Annexure-3 is a letter addressed to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram in which it has been stated that in view of the order of the Court dated 15.03.1998 (correct date being 18.03.1998), the petitioner’s case would be considered for appointment to the post of village Chowkidar if direct appointments are made for the said posts. It is categorically mentioned that the petitioner cannot be considered on compassionate grounds for the purposes of appointment as Chowkidar as he does not fulfill the criteria for such consideration. In the counter affidavit, it has further been stated that the petitioner was working in place of one Chowkidar Ram Ashish Chowkidar who was dismissed due to his involvement in a theft case. It has been stated that the petitioner does not come within the purview of the policy decision taken by the State Government whereas the stand of the petitioner is that there are three criteria for making appointments according to the Government policy, which 3 are (a) that person should be working before 01.01.1990; (b) that he should be working as Awazi meaning thereby that the family of the incumbent was working as a Chowkidar or was working on a vacant post. It is contended that the petitioner was working on a vacant post and, therefore, he came within the purview of the Government policy. This Court after considering all aspects of the matter and the fact that High Court on two earlier occasions did not think it fit to direct for consideration of the case of the petitioner on the basis of the fact that he was working on a vacant post and came within the purview of the Government policy, finds that it is not possible to give any positive direction to the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram to consider the case for appointment on the post of Chowkidar on the basis of the Government decision. However, it would always be open for the District Magistrate to consider the case of the petitioner for the purposes of appointment as a Chowkidar in case appointments are being made on the said post and an application is filed by the petitioner. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)