Sushil Kumar Turi @ Sushil Turi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4643 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P.(S) No.4504 of 2017
             Sushil Kumar Turi @ Sushil Turi, S/o Late Babulal Turi, Village Moti
             Pahari, PO Moti Pahari, PS Borio, Dist. Sahibganj.
                                                          ...    Petitioner
                                           -versus-
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj.
          3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahibganj.
          4. The Circle Officer, Borio Circle, Sahibganj.
          5. The Officer-in-Charge, Borio Police Station, Sahibganj.
                                                          ...    Respondents
                                               ----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, AC to AAG I

----

7/ 21.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner, who was appointed as Chowkidar on the basis of inheritance, has been dismissed from service. This order of dismissal as contained in Memo No.275 dated 09.05.2016 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3 Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on the sole criteria of inheritance. The issue of appointment in public service on the basis of heredity has already been decided by this Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika versus Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1154 at paragraph 23 thereof has held as under: -

23. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the

employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the respondent that the appointment is not on compassionate grounds but the same be called as varas hakka cannot be accepted. Even if the same be called as varas hakka the same is not supported by any scheme and even the same also can be said to be violative of Article 14 as well as Article 15 of the Constitution of India.

4. Further, in W.P.(S) No.2072 of 2007 [Nandan Lohra versus The State of Jharkhand & Others] it has been held as under:-

4) Having heard learned counsel for both the side and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the fact that there is no legitimate right vested with the petitioner to be appointed as Chaukidar of village Raghunathpur, PS Chanho, District Ranchi. Moreover, the grounds stated in the petition that the entire villagers have requested that petitioner should be appointed, cannot be a reason for appointment of the petitioner as a Chaukidar. In view of these facts, there is no case made out by the petitioner to be appointed as Chaukidar. Morever, after the commencement of the Constitution of India in force and specifically as per the Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, public post cannot be given to the legal heirs of the retired employee. There ought to be a public advertisement and equal opportunity should have been given to the eligible candidates. In view of this fact also, merely because petitioner is the son of a retired Chaukidar, he cannot be appointed merely because he is his legal heir. State authorities should take care of the matter that after commencement of the Constitution of India, no public post can be given as an inheritance to the son/daughter of a retired employee. There ought to be a public advertisement and candidates must be selected on the basis of their merits. I, therefore, direct the respondents-State Authorities that henceforth, no appointment shall be made without public advertisement on the post of Chaukidar. The provision ought to be applied in the light of the constitutional provisions and there ought to be a public advertisement and equal opportunity should have been given to all the eligible candidates.

5. This Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 1048 of 2016 has disapproved this type of appointment.

6. Considering the above judgments, I find no ground to entertain this writ petition, as the appointment itself was bad, illegal and void ab initio and the same was against the mandate of the Constitution of India, the State passed the impugned order removing the petitioner who was admittedly appointed solely on the ground of inheritance. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02