IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No. 38 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 20, 2010. Kuldeep Singh ...... Appellant Versus. Balwinder Singh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant. JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). Vide Order dated 13.06.2006, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muktsar, appointed respondent No. 1 as Chowkidar of village Sammewali, Tehsil and District Muktsar. Appellant went in appeal, which was accepted primarily on the ground that the appellant’s grandfather was a Chowkidar and as such the appellant had hereditary claim to get the abovesaid post. It was further stated that appellant had acquired experience of working as a Chowkidar when his grandfather was working on that post. Respondent No. 1 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14560 of 2007, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by observing as under :- “ Chowkidar of village Sammewali died and process to appoint a new Chowkidar was accordingly initiated. The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the same before Collector. The Collector set-side the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent No. 3 on his place on the ground that said respondent had an hereditary claim. The comparative merit was also discussed, in which there was not Letters Patent Appeal No. 38 of 2010 (O&M) -2- much difference between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Counsel for the petitioner is justified in saying that for appointment of Chowkidar, hereditary claim could not be a valid ground to appoint a person. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The appointment of the petitioner as done by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate is up-held.” It is clear from the records that both the candidates, on merit are virtually competing each other. Taking note of recommendation made in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Tehsildar, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muktsar, appointed him as Chowkidar of the village. This appointment was set aside only on the ground that the appellant had hereditary claim and also gained experience as Chowkidar when working with his grandfather. So far as the appellant’s hereditary claim is concerned, to that extent, no benefit can be given to him because no such benefit has been provided to any candidate under The Punjab Chaukidara Rules, 1965. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that appellant had any experience of working as a Chowkidar. There was no reason with the Deputy Commissioner to annul the appointment made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muktsar. No case is made out for interference with the Order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muktsar, and Order of the learned Single Bench. Since the writ petition has been dismissed on merit, so there is no need to pass order in Misc. Applications. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE July 20, 2010. sjks.