CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5862 OF 1994 *** (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) **** DULARCHAND PASWAN, SON OF LATE LALI PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PABRA, POLICE STATION SINGHIA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ROSERA 5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, HASANPUR POLICE STATION, SAMASTIPUR 6. LALAN PASWAN, SON OF RAMDEO PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DASAUT, POLICE STATION HATHAURI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ……………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ****************** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. BHUPENDRA NARAIN SINHA, ADV. MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. SANJEEV KUMAR FOR RESPONDENT NO. 6 :- MR. SAJID SALIM KHAN, ADVOCATE ************* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. The petitioner has challenged Annexure-1 which is the order of appointment of Chowkidar under the Police Station Hathauri within the district of Samastipur. By the impugned order dated 13.01.1994, 20 persons were appointed as Chowkidars. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of Lalan Paswan, respondent no. 6, who is at Item No. 9 of Annexure-1. 2 The case of the petitioner is that his father was working in Circle No. 3 Bit No. 8 as a Chowkidar and after his retirement, the petitioner began to work as a Chowkidar. It is stated that one Gyanchand Kamti who is at Item No. 5 was appointed as Chowkidar and was working in Circle No. 3 Bit No. 8, whereas the petitioner was working as a Chowkidar and Lalan Paswan was appointed against Circle No. 3 Bit No. 10. It has been stated by the petitioner and also reiterated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State that one Gyanchand Kamti was posted at Circle No. 3 Bit No. 10 and as such Lalan Paswan was adjusted by the Officer-in-charge and deputed to work in Circle No. 3 Bit No. 8 whereas according to the petitioner, Gyanchand Kamti is working at Circle No. 2 Bit No. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner has a better claim than Lalan Paswan as his father was working as a Chowkidar whereas the grand father’s Lalan Paswan was working as a Chowkidar. A representation was filed on behalf of the petitioner which remains undisposed of. Specific statement on behalf of the respondent-State is that the petitioner never worked as Chowkidar in place after his father’s retirement; and he did not appear in the interview held for selection on the 3 post of Chowkidar vide Annexure-1. In reply to the statements made aforesaid, it has been stated that the petitioner never worked as a Chowkidar is incorrect in view of the fact that the petitioner has been issued several KAMANS along with Gyanchandra Kamti, Chandradeo Paswan and Ram Sagar Paswan to conduct enquiry etc. in the village. The only one such KAMAN has been annexed to the writ application however, the petitioner had stated that he will produce the KAMANS issued to him. The originals and the photocopy have been produced which are about 27 in numbers which indicate that the petitioner was infact working as a Chowkidar during the interim period between 1990 to 13.01.1994. Second ground for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and which is specifically stated is that although interview letters were issued to the petitioner on two occasions, the petitioner did not turn to face the interview and as such his case was not considered for appointment. In the representation, the petitioner has submitted that the interview register would indicate that the petitioner had appeared in the interview as it had been countersigned by him. As far as the case of the respondent no. 6 is concerned, it is specifically stated that he faced the 4 interview and was selected and appointed as Chowkidar. There is no illegality in the appointment order and the respondent has worked from 1993 onwards (2010) as such, he cannot be removed on the ground that the petitioner has claimed for appointment on the post of Chowkidar. After considering all the facts as stated above, it appears that the petitioner was issued interview letters on 12.11.1993 and 10.12.1993 indicating that the interview will be held on 29.12.1993 at 12 noon. However, it is equally clear that for one reason or the other, the petitioner could not appear in the interview. To say after so many years that the register would indicate that he faced the interview as he had countersigned on it and that too without there being any pleading in the writ application, I think it would be improper for this Court to reopen the matter and direct the respondents to enquire into the matter after a gap of 25 years. In the result, this application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED 27TH APRIL, 2010 N.A.F.R./Anand