DAYANAND PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

(2.) Petitioners are serving as candidate peon in the Collectorate, Nalanda and its attached offices. They were empanelled in the year 1992-93 for being appointed against Class-IV post in the Collectorate, Nalanda and its attached offices. Later they were again empanelled in 2001 and 2002, but could not be appointed, as in the year 2003 those panels were abandoned. Such statement has been made in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition.

(3.) This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, to quash the order bearing Memo No. 327 dated 1.3.2008, Annexure-5 whereunder panel of candidate peon(s) prepared for appointment on Class-IV post in the Collectorate, Nalanda and its attached offices was abandoned. During the pendency of the writ petition, the authorities issued General Notice for appointment on Class-IV post in the Collectorate, Nalanda dated 6.4.2011, Annexure-10 asking only those candidate peon who served the Collectorate' Nalanda and attached offices until 11.12.1990 to apply for appointment in the Collectorate and attached offices on Class-IV post, provided the applicant had served as candidate peon in the Collectorate and its attached offices for 240 days in each of the preceding 5 years. Aforesaid General Notice is being challenged by filing I.A. No. 2819 of 2011 on the ground that the said General Notice dated 6.4.2011, Annexure-10 is contrary to the rules notified by the Government under notification dated 26,3.2010, Annexure-9 for appointment on Class-IV post, as in terms of the rules anyone above 18 years of age and fulfilling other qualification required for Class-IV post is eligible to apply but in the General Notice dated 6.4.2011, Annexure-10 only those candidate peons who were engaged to serve as candidate peon prior to 11.12.1990 and actually served as such for at least 240 days in each of the preceding 5 years has been asked to apply and thus according to the Learned Counsel, petitioners and others have been disqualified from making application for being considered for appointment against Class-IV post in the Collectorate. They have challenged the General Notice on the ground that the same is contrary to the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that Government having notified the rules permitting the individual of more than 18 years of age to be eligible for being considered for appointment against Class-IV post by publishing the General Notice, the District Magistrate, Nalanda has violated the provisions of the rules and for such violation of the rules, the advertisement is required to be quashed. In this connection, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General, Kolkata & Ors. vs. Tutu Das (Dutta), 2007 4 PLJR(SC) 51, paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 and submitted that no appointment should be made contrary to the rules. Learned Counsel has also relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virender Singh Hooda and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2004 12 SCC 588, paragraph-59 and submitted that even vested right can be taken away by retrospective legislation by removing the basis of the judgment.