IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4472 of 2007 Prakash Tanti, S/o Shri Kripanand Tanti, resident of village- Variyahi, P.S. – Bangaon, District- Saharsa … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Saharsa 3. Superintendent of Police, Saharsa 4. Officer-in-Charge, Bangaon, P.S.- Bangaon, Distt. Saharsa 5. Saheb Paswan, S/o Late Dasrath Paswan, Chawkidar, Bangaon, P.S. Bangaon, District Saharsa .Respondents ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For the State :Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate, AAG-8 & Ratna Das, A.C. to AAG-8 04/ 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the State- respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as Chawkidar pursuant to the recommendation dated 22.1.2004, Annexure-1 of the Establishment Committee constituted for such purpose. Perusal of the recommendation dated 22.1.2004, however, indicates that thereunder the case of the petitioner and others was considered for appointment as Chawkidar/ Dafadar and against his name, it was stated that his case for such appointment shall be considered as and when the documents are 2 produced. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is the son of Late Kripanand Tanti, who earlier served as Chawkidar of Circle/ Beat No. 1/6, Bangaon P.S. who nominated the petitioner for appointment as Chawkidar. It is submitted that in the light of the nomination made by his late father, Kripanand Tanti, petitioner’s case is required to be considered by the Establishment Committee constituted for the purpose of appointment on the post of Chawkidar, as during the proceedings held on 22.1.2004 decision in regard to the appointment of the petitioner as Chawkidar could not be taken on account of non-availability of documents. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that other 52 out of 70 persons considered in the proceedings dated 22.1.2004 have already been appointed as Chawkidar/ Dafadar and such fact would appear from the order of this Court dated 8.4.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11769 of 2007. Case of the remaining nominee(s) out of 70 has also been considered in compliance of the aforesaid order of the High Court 3 dated 8.4.2011. With reference to the said order dated 8.4.2011, it is submitted that similar order be passed in the case of the petitioner as well. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the post of Chawkidar/ Dafadar was declared civil post by the State Government under circular dated 17.1.1990 with effect from 1.1.1990 and after the two post became civil post, no nominee of the erst while Chawkidar/ Dafadar could be appointed as Chawkidar/ Dafadar without undergoing the selection process. In this connection, he also submitted that if the appointment on the post of Chawkidar/ Dafadar is made on the basis of the nomination, such appointment shall be in teeth of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Aforesaid aspect of the matter was considered by this Court under orders dated 27.8.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6997 of 2003 and in compliance of the said order, circular providing for one time opportunity to nominate under circular letter dated 20.12.1995 was also withdrawn with effect from the date of issue of the said circular i.e. 4 20.12.1995 under Fax Message, bearing Letter No12094 dated 11.11.2004 issued to all the Divisional Commissioners and the District Magistrates of the State, which was taken note by this Court under orders dated 13.9.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3045 of 2007 holding that Chawkidar/ Dafadar having become civil post with effect from 1.1.1990, there cannot be any appointment on the said post without undergoing selection process infracting Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the State further relied on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Suresh Prasad Kuswaha Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) P.L.J.R. 106 whereunder also this Court held that after the post of Chawkidar/ Dafadar became civil post, appointment on the basis of nomination will infract Article 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be permitted. Same view has been taken in the case of Ram Pukar Sah Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2006(3) P.L.J.R. 436, by learned Chief Justice following the judgment in the case of 5 Suresh Prasad Kuswaha (supra). Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order of this Court dated 8.4.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11769 of 2007 is of no assistance to the petitioner as thereunder direction has only been issued to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners of the said writ case in the light of the proceedings dated 22.1.2004. Proceedings dated 22.1.2004, Annexure-1 taken for appointment on the post of Chawkidar/ Dafadar on the basis of nomination made by the erst while Chawkidar/ Dafadar is infracting Article 16 of the Constitution of India and is arbitrary again violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the circumstances, I not only dismiss the writ petition, but also direct the authorities to remove the persons who have been appointed on the basis of the proceedings dated 22.1.2004 after notice giving them opportunity of being heard. AFR Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)