MOHDBAMAKHANBISHUNDEOSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These two writ-petitions involve the same controversy and as such have been heard together. This judgment will govern both of them. "

(2.) One Ambika Singh was the Dafadar of Circle No. 4 of Pakaribarawan P. S. within the district of Nawadah. On 12-5-1983 he was removed from the post by order of Superintendent of Police on the ground of old age and incapacity. Mohd. Bama Khan, petitioner in CWJC No. 5253 of 1984 was appointed as the Dafadar in his place on the same date. Ambika Singh submitted representation before the District Magistrate, who by his order dated 13-7-1984 set aside the order of the Superintendent of Police and reinstated Ambika Singh. An office order was, accordingly, issued by the Superintendent of Police on 13-11-1984 appointing Ambika Singh. It would appear from the said order that the previous order dated 12-5-1983 appointing Bama Khan as the Dafadar was cancelled on the ground that the same had not been approved by the District Magistrate. Bama Khan challenged, During the pendency of the writ petition Ambika Singh retired sometime in March 1987. On 16-10-1997 Bama Khan was appointed as the Dafadar, although on temporary basis. Bishundeo Singh, son of Ambika Singh, objected to the appointment of Bama Khan and filed a representation before the District Magistrate. He also approached this Court in CWJC No. 557 of 1988 which was disposed of on 11-3-1988 with a direction to dispose of the said representation. The District Magistrate rejected the representation by his order dated 21-4-1988 which has been challenged by Bishundeo Singh in CWJC No. 5767 of 1988.

(3.) Mr. Jayanandan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No 5767 of 1988, submitted that according to the prevalent custom the son or the member of the family of the previous Dafadar has pre-existing right to the office. It was pointed out that in 1987, the State Government had taken a policy decision to appoint the nomince of the previous Chaukidar/Dafadar on this retirement. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Annexure 4, which is a kind of memorandum of agreement. No Government order within the meaning of Article 166 of the Constitution, however, was brought to my notice. Learned counsel also submitted that both the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate have committed error in giving weightage to Bama Khan on the ground of his past experience during his first appointment between 12-3-1983 and 13-11-1984.