Murliganj,District Madhepura vs Murliganuj, District Madhepura

9. Visheshwar Paswan, son of Sri Jamun Paswan(Hazra), resident of village Sukhasan Chakla, P.S. & District Madhepura

10. Shivendra Tanti, son of Sri Raghuni Tanti, resident of Murho Pokharia, P.S. & District Madhepura

11. Bhola Rishsideo, son of late Ram Swarup Rishideo, resident of village Dhurgaon, Tola Giddha, P.S. & District Madhepura 12. Mukhtar Paswan, son of Sri Saryug Paswan, resident of village Machhbakhara, P.O. Godhaila, P.S. & District Madhepura 13. Mala Devi, wife of late Ramphal Sada, resident of village Dubiyahi, P.S. & District Madhepura

14. Dinesh Rishidev, son of Sri Maheshwari Rishideo, resident of village Jagir, P.S. & District Madhepura

15. Ram Chandra Rishideo, son of Sri Siyaram Rishideo, resident of village Mahua, P.S. & District Madhepura

16. Dilip Rishideo, son of late Hriday Rishideo, resident of village Belokhari, P.S.Ghailarh, District Madhepura 2

17. Raj Kumar Paswan, son of Sri Aghari Paswan, resident of village Guriya, P.S. Kumarkhand, Districtr Madhepura

18. Srikant Paswan, son of Sri Nilesh Paswan, resident of village Rajnigot, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

19. Jai Krishna Rishideo, son of Sri Muni Rishideo, resident of village Tamot Parsa, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

20. Ratan Paswan, son of Sri Daha Paswan, resident of village Ramapur, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

21. Abhinandan Paswan, son of Sri Nemani Paswan, resident of village Sukhasan, P.S. Murliganj,District Madhepoura 22. Ganesh Paswan son of Sri Tarni Paswan, resident of village Rajni Bahangama, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

23. Chandeshwari Paswan, son of Sri Lakshmi Paswan, resident of village Ratanpatti, P.S. Murliganj,District Madhepura

24. Janardan Paswan, son of Sri Bhogi Paswan, resident of village Shishora, P.S. Murliganj,District Madhepura

25. Gajendra Paswan, son of Sri Ragho Paswan, Versus resident of village Khari, P.S. Murliganuj, District Madhepura … … Appellants 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Diuvisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa

3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhepura … … Respondents Ist Set 4. Sudhir Kumar, son of late Babujee Mandal, resident of village+ P.O.Rani Patti, P.S. Kumarkhand, District Madhepura 5. Sanju Soren, son of Sri Hari Soren resident of village Godhiya Ghat, P.O. Joregama, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

6. Rajeshwar Mandal, son of Sri Bhikhar Mandal, resident of village Sadhua, P.O. Tulsibari, P.S. & District Madhepura 7. Shyam Lal Soren, son of Sri Chutka Soren, resident of village Pokhram, P.O. Pokhram,Via Budharna, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura 3

8. Bhupendra Thakur, son of Sri Satya Narayan Thakur, resident of village Jittapur, P.O. Jittapur, P.S. Murliganj,District Madhepura

9. Barku Murmu, son of Sri Supal Murmu, resident of village Pokhram, P.O. Pokhram, Via Budhama, P.S. Murliganj,District Madhepura 10. Babulal Murmu, son of Bijal Murmu, resident of village Bagharia, P.O. Dinapatti, P.S. Murliganuj, District Madhepura

11. Chandra Kishore Besra, son of Deban Lal Besra, resident of village and P.O. Joregama, Gadhiyaghat, P.S. Murliganj,District Madhepura

12. Dinesh Baski, son of Sri Mangal Baski, resident of village and P.O. Jaregama, P.S. Murliganuj, District Madhepura 13. Surya Narayan Tuddu, son of Sri Chandru Tuddu resident of village Sahpur, P.S.Sahpur, via Gwalpara,District Madhepura

14. Baiju Hansda, son of Sri Juppa Hansda, resident of village Sahpur, P.O. Sahpur, Via Gawalpura, District Madhepura

15. Chandra Shekhar Tuddu, son of Sri Basta Tuddu, resident of village and P.O. Bardela, P.S.Dhamdaha, District P)rnea 16. Prithvi Dhand Hansda, son of late Asho Hansda, resident of village Haripur, Tinkonma, P.O.Haripur Kala, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

17. Thithar Mahto, son of Sri Bhagwan Mahto, resident of village Belha Ghat, P.O. Tulsiwari, P.S. & District Madhepura 18. Renu Kumari-II, daughter of Sri Buchchi Rai, resident of Madhepura, Ward No. 6, P.O. Madhepura, P.S. & District Madhepura

19. Ganesh Murmu, son of Sri Bhubneshwar Murmu, resident of village Bayhaniya, P.O. Dinat, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

20. Jitendra Soren, son of Sri Thakur Soren resident of Jareguma, P.O. Jareguma, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

21. Shrawan Kumar, sonof Sri Ranjee Mukhiya, resident of village Belaghat, P.O. tulsiwari, District Madhepura

22. Naresh Kumar Tuddu, son of Sri Kanhar Tuddu, resident of village Haripur 4 Tinkoma, P.O. Itaripur Kala, P.S. Murliganu, District Madhepura

23. Meena Kumari, wife of Gorelal Tuddu, resident of village Haripur TRinkonma, P.O. Haripur Kala, P.S. Murliganju, District Madhepura

24. Hari Charan Murmu, son of Sri Lal Murmu, resident of village Ranipatti, P.O. Dibra Bazar, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

25. Ratan Kumar Hansda, son of Rupen Handda, resident of village Singiyan, P.O.Dibrabazar, P.S. Murliganj, District Madhepura

26. Shankar Kumar Hambram, son of Sri Surya Narayan Hembram resident of village & P.O. Dinapathi, P.s. Murliganu,District Madhepura

27. Suraj Kumar Marandi son of Sri Chhotelal Marandi, resident of village Dinapathi, P.s. Murliganj, District Mazdhepura. … … Respondents second set For the appellants: Mr.Chitranjan Sinha,Sr.Adv. Mr.D.K.Singh For respondents 1 to 3: Mr. A.C. to SC XI For respondents 4 to 27: Mr.Ashok Kr.Singh Mr. Mayank Shekhar -----------

4.3.2009 Respondents- appellants aggrieved by the order dated 16th of October, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16519 of 2001 have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the writ petitioners, respondents herein, appointed Chaukidars/Dafadars sometimes in the year 5

1995. Their appointments were challenged by a category of persons who were wards of erstwhile Chaukidars/Dafadars by filing a writ application before this Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 7374 of 1995. They had also raised grievances before the authority which led to cancellation of their appointments which was challenged by filing another writ application registered as C.W.J.C. No. 1289 of 1997. Both the writ applications were disposed of by a common order dated 7.4.1997, the relevant portion thereof reads as follows: “The Commissioner, Divisional Saharsa is directed to look into the matter afresh. He will give an opportunity of hearing to the appointees before he comes to any conclusion. He may also hear the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7374 of 1995 through their representative. If he comes to the conclusion that there was any illegality or irregularity in making the impugned appointments, he will direct the District Magistrter, Madhepura to take steps for fresh appointment. In that event, the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.7374 of 1995 will be given a chance of selection along with others (without giving them any advantage of their erstwhile Dafadar/Chaukidar) on merit), if on the other hand the Divisional Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the impugned appointments did not suffer from any infirmity he shall permit the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 1289 of 1997 to continue on the posts. With directions these two writ petitions are disposed of.” observations 6 After several rounds of litigations, respondents-appellants have been appointed as Dafadars/Chaukidars only on the ground that they happen to be relations or nominees of the erstwhile Chaukidars/Dafadars. The writ petitioners challenged their appointments which has been found to be illegal by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order on the ground that it is in teeth of direction of this Court in the writ applications referred to above. In this connection, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows: “On a proper consideration of all the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties this Court finds that the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents who are rivals for appointment to the post of Chaukidars and Dafadars in the district of Madhepura has to be resolved by simply following the direction of this Court as per earlier decision contained in Annexure-7. It is also found that the impugned order contained in Annexure-13 whereby the private respondents have been selected and appointed on the post of Chaukidars directions of this Court contained in Annexure-7 petitioners were not considered and to the contrary selected and appointed only because they were relations or nominees of the erstwhile Chaukidrs/Dafadars. In the facts of the case the impugned order is found to be illegal and requires to be quashed. However, considering that post of chaukidars is part of a link between the rural police and the regular police and it should not be kept vacant, the respondents violation because private 7 private respondents who are working on those posts by virtue of order contained in Annexure-13 are allowed to continue to work for a further period of three months. Thereafter their appointment shall stand terminated and the impugned order contained in Annexure-13 shall stand quashed. The period of three moths has been granted only to enable the District magistrate, Madhepura to initiate the process of selection and appointment against the concerned vacant posts and any other vacancy available in the District of Madhepura in accordance with law. So far as the petitioners and the private respondents are concerned their cases must be considered strictly in accordance with earlier direction by this Court contained in Annexure-7 which has been accepted by the parties for such a long period.” Mr.Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that in view of the decision of the State Government as contained in letter dated 20th of December, 1995 and 7th of December, 2005 reiterating its earlier decision dated 20th of December,1995, the appellants were rightly appointed as Chaukidars/Dafadars being the nominees or wards of the erstwhile Chaukidars/Dafadars. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Sinha. In an inter se litigation between the parties, this Court had specifically observed that the selection shall be made 8 without giving the appellants any advantage of their being the wards of erstwhile Dafadarsf/Chaukidars. In that view, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in allowing the writ application. We find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Kanth ( C.K.Prasad, A.C.J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)