IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1030 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10694 of 2007 With Interlocutory Application No. 4715 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1030 of 2011 Lalit Paswan Son of Sahdeo Paswan, Resident of Village-Sripur, Police Station-Pratapganj, District-Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Supaul. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, GP-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 18-07-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 4715 of 2011: Delay of 23 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1030 of 2011: The appellant-writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent to challenge the judgment Patna High Court LPA No.1030 of 2011 (2) dt.18-07-2011 2 / 3 2 and order dated 22nd April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 10694 of 2007. The appellant is the son of one Sahdeo Paswan. The said Sahdeo Paswan was employed as Chaukidar under the District Magistrate, Supaul. Since his retirement on 30th November 1999 the appellant claims a right to appointment as Chaukidar as the nominee of his father Sahdeo Paswan. Reliance is placed on the decision of the District Selection Committee taken on 19th July 2003. Under the said decision dated 19th July 2003, the District Selection Committee decided to appoint a nominee of the Chaukidars who had retired from service after 1st January 1990. The claim of the appellant was also considered. His name appears at serial number 38. Nevertheless, he has not been given appointment. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the appellant pursuant to a Government circular he has a right to appointment as Chaukidar in place of his father who retired as Chaukidar on 30th November 1999. The claim has been rejected by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. We are of the opinion that the claim of the appellant is wholly misconceived. The decision dated 19th July 2003 of the District Selection Committee in so far as the appointment of the wards of retired Chaukidars is concerned is highly deplorable and is made in contravention to the principles of equality in public employment contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If such an order is permitted to be sustained, the employment in public service will be converted into hereditary service. Learned Patna High Court LPA No.1030 of 2011 (2) dt.18-07-2011 3 / 3 3 single Judge has rightly rejected the claim. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Pawan Kumar/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)