Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Mahto Son Of Sukhdeo ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6196 of 2018
----
Rajendra Mahto son of Sukhdeo Mahto, resident of Village Kadrasar,
PO PS Palajori, Dist. Deoghar.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, AC to GP IV
----
5/ 19.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. Petitioner has challenged the order No.33/16 contained in Memo
No.19(Mu) dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), whereby the
services of the petitioner has been terminated.
3. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the facts are
admitted in this case.
4. Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar, solely on the basis of
heredity as his father was a Chowkidar. In public employment, there is no
scope of appointment on the basis of heredity. Any claimant cannot have any
right on any post on the basis of heredity, that his father or grandfather was
holding the said post. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have to be
strictly followed while providing opportunity in public employment.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, Division Bench of this Court, by a
judgment passed in L.P.A. No.196 of 2012, relying on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendar Paswan and Ors. Vs. State
of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2010(3) JCR 161 (SC) has upheld the
termination order of Chowkidars, who were appointed solely on the basis of
heredity.
6. Further, 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
16 thereof has held as under: -
16. 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.
7. Considering the law laid down, I find no illegality in the impugned
order No.33/16 contained in Memo No.19(Mu) dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure 4
to the writ petition). Further, since new Rules have been framed in 2015, the
post of Chowkidar can only be filled up by public advertisement, if the
petitioner applies for the post of Chowkidar against any future advertisement,
his case will be considered without being prejudiced by this order.
8. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, upholding the
impugned order dated 26.04.2016.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/S.K/Cp-02
