BHOLANATH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondents dated 21st January, 2010 whereby, the petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of chowkidar has not been appreciated. Petitioner is seeking appointment on the post of Chowkidar mainly on the ground that his father was also a chowkidar, now retired, and therefore, he should be given the post of chowkidar. The petitioner also wants age relaxation as the petitioner has crossed the maximum age. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the age of the petitioner should have been appreciated as on date of application and not on the date of consideration because there is long lapse of time between the date of application preferred by the petitioner for the post in question and the date on which, the application was considered and therefore, the petitioner may not be treated as age barred for the post in question. When this Court raised a question that under which law the petitioner is claiming as a matter of right the post of chowkidar he is unable to point out any provision of law except that his father was also a chowkidar.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right the post of chowkidar as an inheritance. It amounts to violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. On every public post, the petitioner has to compete with others. No such type of appointment can be made on a public post as a matter of right.

(3.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly on the following facts and reasons :--