IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8751 of 2009 Raj Kishore Rai Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----- 3. 09.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Katihar, pursuant to which it has been directed that no work should be taken from him as Chaukidar. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Chaukidar on 30.8.2005 by the Competent Committee chaired by the District Magistrate. The impugned order talks of a government instruction dated 4.5.2005 which had directed that the appointment of Evaji Chaukidar and their regularisation be not considered. The order of appointment of the petitioner does not mention that he was an Evaji Chaukidar or that he was being regularized. There shall be a presumption of an appointment in accordance with law by the committee concerned. It was not an appointment by an individual made without authority. Counsel for the State submits that it is apparent from the order of the District Magistrate that the appointment was in teeth of the government instruction dated 4.5.2005 prohibiting appointment and regularisation of Evaji Chaukidar. It is next submitted on behalf of the State that any appointment on 30.8.2005 could have been only after an open advertisement and merit selection. The counter affidavit of the District Magistrate relies on the government instruction dated 4.5.2005. The letter has been appended as Annexure 5 to the writ application. It talks of ban on appointment of 2 Evaji Chaukidar after 6.11.1991.The counter affidavit of the District Magistrate is completely silent on the methodology followed by the committee while making appointment of the petitioner on 30.8.2005. If 13 appointments were made by a committee, the presumption shall be that proper procedures for appointment were followed. If the committee acted illegally all the members of the committee may become answerable and the petitioner alone cannot be allowed to suffer. The counter affidavit states that a show cause has been issued to the District Magistrate. But if there was a ban and the petitioner held the status of Evaji Chaukidar and if the order dated 30.8.2005 was in fact an order of regularisation, different considerations may arise in context of the ban order dated 4.5.2005. The accountability and answerability of the District Magistrate shall necessarily also fall for consideration. The impugned orders and the counter affidavit are hardly of any help and leaves the Court more confused. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police), to grant a personal and/or representative hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order so that judicial review, if necessary, is facilitated. If the Deputy Secretary is satisfied that the appointment of the petitioner on 30.8.2005 was in accordance with law nothing precludes him pursuant to the present order of the Court to pass an appropriate order notwithstanding the direction of the District Magistrate dated 12.1.2009. The petitioner was appointed as a Chaukidar. he alone cannot suffer except along with those who appointed him. Let such fresh orders be passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order before him. 3 The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)