PRADIP DAS SON OF LATE TULSI DAS AND GRAND SON OF LATE BALI MIRDHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents for setting aside the Memo No.29 dated 05.09.2009 passed by respondent No.2, pertaining to rejection of claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Chowkidar. Further, prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner dated 20.02.2010.

(2.) The brief facts, as has been delineated in the writ application is that, the grand-father of the petitioner who was appointed as Chowkidar under the Raiyati rights, died leaving behind the petitioner as minor since the father of the petitioner pre-deceased the grand-father. The land of Mauza Shivrampur No.253, Khatianship No.101, Jamabandi No.47 to the extent of 5 Bigha, 01 Katha and 17 Dhur was settled by the State Government in favour of the grand-father of the petitioner namely, Bali Mirdha as Chowkidari man for the village Shivrampur. At the death of the grand-father, the petitioner was minor. Another person has been appointed on the post of Chowkidar who retired in the year 2006. Though the name of the petitioner has been nominated by the villagers and the post was still lying vacant and since the case of the petitioner was not considered, he filed W.P.(S.) No.3882 of 2007 before this Hon'ble Court and the said writ petition was disposed of on 09.06.2008 with a direction to file representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, which was to be considered in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. In deference to the direction of this Court, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition which is impugned in the writ petition vide order dated 05.09.2009. Even after disposal of the said representation, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 20.02.2010 before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur which was stated to be pending at the time of filing of the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-8 as well as inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Ms. Saroj Kumari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petitioner being the grandson of Ex-chowkidar under Section 38 of the Village Chowkidar Act, 1870 has got preferential right as a candidate to stake his hereditary claim under Section 41 of the said Act. Learned counsel further submits that as the respondent without considering the relevant provision of the Chowkidar Act, has rejected the case of the petitioner in a very hyper-technical manner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner being in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the representation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition has failed to evoke any response to the respondents till date, which smacks of colourable exercise of power.