Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 21 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 1098 of 2019
Prakash Paswan, aged about 34 years, S/o Sri Meghlal Paswan,
resident of Village-Meramgadda, P.O.-Jhurjhuri, P.S. Barkathha,
District-Hazaribag (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Principal Secretary, Home,
Jail and Disaster Management Department, Jharkhand, Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Home, Jail and Disaster
Management Department, Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag,
District Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
5. The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribag,
District Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
6. The Circle Officer, Barkathha Circle, Barkathha, P.O. and P.S.
Barkathha, District Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
7. The Officer-in-Charge, Barkathha Police Station, P.O. and P.S.
Barkathha, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
08/21.07.2022
1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"i. For quashing of the Memo No. 525 dated 30.3.2016
(Annexure-13) issued by the Deputy Commissioner,
Hazaribag (Resp. No. 4), so far it relates to the petitioner,
by which the petitioner, who was duly appointed and
working as Chowkidar has been terminated from their
service merely by giving reference of a Govt. of Memo
No. 1509 dated 14.3.2016 (Annexure-12) issued by the
Resp. No. 3, in most illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional manner that too without holding any
regular departmental enquiry in gross violation of Article
311 (2) of Constitution of India against the settled
principles of law.
ii. For reinstatement of the petitioner in service as
Chowkidar on the respective vacant and sanctioned post
of Chowkidar with all consequential benefits such as
salary etc.
iii. For grant of such other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner would be entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case set forth in the writ
application."
4. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the present
case is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.
2792/2016 with other analogous cases and accordingly, this writ
petition may also be disposed of with the same terms.
5. Upon perusal of the writ records it is not in dispute that the
father of the petitioner retired from the post of Chaukidar and the
name of the petitioner was recommended for his appointment as
Chaukidar on the basis of hereditary rights. The petitioner was
appointed as Chaukidar vide letter dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure-7).
The service of the petitioner was terminated vide impugned Memo
No. 525 dated 30.3.2016 (Annexure-13) and the termination of the
petitioner was referrable to the judgement passed by this court dated
17.11.2011 in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007 (Nandan Lohra versus
State and others).
6. Vide judgment dated 17.11.2011 passed in W.P.(S). No.2072 of
2007 wherein, it has been held that there cannot be any appointment
on public post on the basis of inheritance and the appointment ought
to be through public advertisement. In the present cases also,
admittedly the petitioner was appointed on the basis of claim of
hereditary right.
7. The judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.2072 of
2007 dated 17.11.2011 has attained finality and has been upheld by
virtue of the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No.
196 of 2012 with L.P.A. No. 404 of 2012 dated 09.08.2019 wherein
following directions were also made by the Hon'ble Division Bench: -
"9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned AAG for the State, we are of the considered view
that no fresh appointment now can be made to the post of
Chaukidar on the basis of inheritance only, on the ground
that the candidate is the son of the retired/deceased
Chaukidar. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Surender Paswan's case (supra), laying down
the law as above. The Rules have also been framed by the
State Government pursuant thereto, prescribing detailed
procedure to be followed for the appointment to the post
of Chaukidar, which is a public post, after advertising the
post, giving equal opportunity to all. In that view of the
matter, the claims of the appellants in both the L.P.As.,
would not survive for being appointment to the post of
Chaukidar, only on the basis of the recommendations
made in their favour by their father, the retired
Choukidars. The posts can be filled up only after public
advertisement and the appellants may apply pursuant to
the advertisement, if they are eligible for applying for the
post, as per the Rules framed in the year 2015. The State
Government is hereby, directed to apply the Rule
uniformly in the entire State, and fill up all the posts of
Chowkidar uniformly, in accordance with the Rules
framed in 2015, without any further delay."
8. Similar action of the respondents was under challenge in a
number of writ petitions including in a batch of writ petitions being
W.P. (S) No. 2792/2016 and other analogous case disposed of vide
order dated 21.06.2022 wherein the petitioners had prayed for
quashing the respective orders by which they have been dismissed/
terminated/removed from the post of Chaukidar and for their
reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
9. This Court finds that W.P. (S) No. 2792/2016 with other
analogous cases, except W.P. (S) No. 7328/2016 and W.P. (S) No.
7304/2016, were disposed of in terms of order dated 09.08.2019
passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 196/2012 and another analogous
cases. Para 13 of the judgement passed in W.P. (S) No. 2792/2016
with other analogous cases is quoted as follows: -
"13. Considering the fact that the case of the petitioners is
covered by the aforesaid judgment, all the writ petitions except
W.P.(S) No.7328 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.7304 of 2016 are
also disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.08.2019 passed
by this Court in L.P.A. No.196 of 2012 and another analogous
case."
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
writ petition is also disposed of in the same term as mentioned in
aforesaid para-13 of the judgement passed in W.P. (S) No. 2792/2016
with other analogous cases.
11. In view of the fact that the present case is covered by the
aforesaid judgment, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief, as
prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition.
12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
