BISHWANATHMISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of the order, passed by the Commissioner. Tirbut Division (respondent No 3) a true copy whereof is contained in annexure '9' whereby and where under the order of dismissal of respondent No 4 from the post of Dafadar has been set aside as also for quashing of the consequential order passed by the Superintendent of Police. Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 3) appointing respondent No. 4 to the post of Dafadar after setting aside the petitioner's appointment to the said post, vide annexure-4.

(2.) In short, the case of the petitioner is that the last permanent incumbent of the post of Dafadar for Beat No 7 within Kranti police station in the district of Muzaffarpur died on 9-8-1974. on 18-3-1975 respondent No. 4 was temporarily appointed as Dafadar by the Superintendent of police, Muzaffarpur (respondent No 3) It is alleged that the said appointment was made by the local police officialy without adopting the procedure prescribed for the said appointment, and against the said appointment one Moin Ahmed filed a petition before the District Magistrate, which was registered as Misc. case No. 25/75. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, vide order dated 6-7-1976 allowed the Misc. case, directed the Superintendent of police to call for nomination roll from the panchayat as per rule and after considering the claims of the parties is either appoint any one of the nominated or reject all of them, so that appointment could be made from the nomination roll on the basis of suitability. However, he directed that respondent No. 4 will in the meantime, function as temporary dafadar till the finalisalion of the appointment by the Superintendent of Police. It is claimed that on 17-12-1977 the petitioner was appointed as Dafadar on probation, but was, however, not allowed to join. Against the same he filed a number of tepresentations before the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police However, in the meantime, the Superintendent of Police called for nomination from the concerred panchavat and by order dated 26-5-1976 appointed respondent No 4 as Dafadar, a true copy whereof has been annexed as annexure '2'.

(3.) As the name of the petitioner had been duly nominated by the concerned panchayat, but was not appointed, because no notice of interview had been served upon him and thus, could not appear before the Superintendent of police at the interview, he filed a petition before the District Magistrate challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4, which was registered as Misc. case No. 14 of 78 The District Magistrate allowed the said petition of the petitioner, vide order dated 17-1-1979 and remanded the matter to the Superintendent of Police for making fresh appointment after giving notice of interview to the petitioner. A true copy of the order dated 17-1-1979 has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, it is claimed by the petitioner that fresh interview took place and the Superintendent of police, vide order dated 5-2-1979 appointed respondent No. 4 as Dafadar on temporary basis. However, the said appointment is said to have been made on the basis of verbal recommendation of the officials and accordingly, the office was directed by the S P. to up the relevant records before him for his final orders. A true copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure 4 to the writ application.