IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5154 of 2008 BIJAY SINGH YADAV, SON OF SHRI BABAN SINGH ALIAS DINDAYAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THAKAR BIGHA, POST OFFICE OSAON, POLICE STATION KACHHAWAN, DISTRICT ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 3. SHRI SAHMIR ANSARI, SON OF SHRI NEZAB MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE IBRAHIMPUR, POLICE STATION KACHHAWAN, DISTRICT ROHTAS. ------------------------ 04. 25.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. None appears for respondent no.3, even after service of notice on respondent no.3. Counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. Such prayer is refused as on 24.08.2011 matter was adjourned for such purpose, even thereafter the State counsel has not filed the counter affidavit. 2. Petitioner was applicant for the post of Chaukidar pursuant to advertisement published in Hindustan newspaper dated 4.3.2001, Annexure-1 for circle no.8, beat no.1 of Kachhawan police station within the district of Rohtas. His candidature for the said appointment has been rejected and respondent no.3, who was applicant for circle no.3, beat no.6 of the aforesaid police station has been appointed on the post of Chaukidar in circle no.8, beat no.1, although 2 respondent no.3 is resident of village, which is at some distance from circle no.8, beat no.1. In this connection, petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide C.W.J.C. No.6126 of 2002 asserting that appointment of respondent no.3 on the post of Chaukidar of circle no.8, beat no.1 is contrary to Rule 41 of the Chaukidari Manual. Aforesaid writ petition was disposed of under order dated 16.05.2002 Annexure-4 directing respondent no.2 to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner assailing the appointment of respondent no.3 by passing reasoned order in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 16.05.2002 during pendency of M.J.C. No.912 of 2006 filed alleging non-compliance of the direction of this Court contained in order dated 16.05.2002, Annexure- 4 the authorities passed order dated 31.07.2006, Annexure-6. This Court having noticed the order dated 31.07.2006, Annexure-6 disposed of the contempt petition under order dated 21.12.2006, Annexure-5 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2006, Annexure-6, if petitioner had any grievance against the same. 3 3. By filing the present writ petition petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2006, Annexure-6, whereunder authorities have justified the appointment of respondent no.3 on the post of Chaukidar of circle no.8, beat no.1 on the ground that his residence is within 6 K.M. from the said circle/beat. Perusal of order dated 31.07.2006, however does not indicate that the authorities considered the submission of the petitioner highlighted before this Court on the earlier occasion as also in the representation filed by the petitioner that respondent no.3 was not an applicant for the post of Chaukidar for circle no.8, beat no.1. It is submitted that respondent no.3 being not an applicant for the post of Chaukidar of circle no.8 beat no.1 he could not have been appointed against the said post pursuant to advertisement dated 4.3.2001, Annexure-1. While disposing of the representation of the petitioner under order dated 31.07.2006, Annexure-6 the authorities were obliged to verify from the records whether respondent no.3 was applicant for circle no.8, beat no.1 and as the said aspect of the matter has not been 4 verified by the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram before passing the order dated 31.07.2006, the same suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram to first enquire as to whether respondent no.3 was applicant for the post of Chaukidar for circle no.8, beat no.1 pursuant to advertisement, Annexure-1 and if he was not applicant for the said post then he could not have been appointed against the said post, his appointment against the said post be cancelled and the other person including the petitioner who was applicant for the said post be considered in accordance with law for such appointment, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)