JALDHAR PASWAN @ HALDHAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner is the son of late Lakhan Paswan who earlier served as Chaukidar attached to Jagdishpur police station in the district of Bhagalpur and was made to superannuate under Memo No.219 dated 19.04.1993 with effect from 1.7.1993. He filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur in Misc. Case No.27 of 2001/02 appointing his younger brother respondent no.6 on the post from which his father superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1993. Appeal of the petitioner filed against order dated 30.09.2002 before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division has also been rejected under order dated 29.12.2004, Annexure-6/ A. By filing this writ petition both the aforesaid order passed by Collector, Bhagalpur and Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division dated 30.09.2002 and 29.12.2004 has been assailed on the ground that after superannuation of his father petitioner should have been appointed as Chaukidar in place of respondent no.6. It appears under administrative representation no.27/2001-02 dated 2.7.2001, Annexure-1 father of the petitioner requested the Collector Bhagalpur to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Chaukidar but Collector, Bhagalpur under impugned order dated 30.09.2002 directed for appointment of respondent no.6, which order has also been affirmed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur. Post of Chaukidar has become civil post under instructions of the Government dated 17.01.1990 with effect from 1.9.1990 and once the post of Chaukidar has become a civil post no nominee of the erstwhile Chaukidar could be appointed as Chaukidar without undergoing selection process.

(3.) In such view of the matter, set aside both the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner, Bhagalpur dated 30.09.2002 and 29.12.2004, Annexure-4, 6/ A and direct the Collector, Bhagalpur/ competent authority to initiate process of selection for appointment on the post of Chaukidar against which respondent no.6 has been appointed. It goes without saying that both the petitioner and respondent no.6 shall be entitled for being considered for such appointment, if they apply pursuant to notice issued for such appointment in accordance with law.