The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No. 350 of 2023 1. Failindra Nath Mahto, aged about 43 years, s/o Sheo Prasad Mahto, r/o village-Budhadih, PO & PS-Tamar, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. Bhaktu Mahto, aged about 34 years, Son of Sonaram Mahto, Resident of Village- Deuri Chaiguriya, P.O. and P.S.-Tamar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Rohit Patar, aged about 33 years, Son of Ranthu Patar, Resident of Village- Salsud, P.O. P.S.-Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Baba Mukhiyar, aged about 40 years, Son of Hadiya Ghasi, Resident of Village- Jamudag, P.O. & P.S.-Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Haldhar Swansi, aged about 43 years, Son of Sri Arjun Swansi, Resident of Village-Sharmali, P.O. & P.S.-Tamar, and Jharkhand. District-Ranchi. 6. Dasiya Bansmahli, aged about 37 years, Son of Somra Bansmahli, Resident of Village-Barahatu, P.O. and P.S.-Bundu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....… Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi. …. ... Respondents With L.P.A No. 229 of 2023 Suresh Yadav, aged about 45 years, s/o Jagdish Mahto, r/o village- Chandwara, PO & PS-Chandwara, District-Koderma ……….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District Koderma. …. ... Respondents With L.P.A No. 348 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
this Court in W.P(S) No.2072 of 2007 and other cases vide L.P.A Nos. 196 of 2012 and 404 of 2012 held that appointment to the post of Chowkidar based on recommendation by the father of the candidate does not meet the requirements under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the post of Chowkidar can be filled up only through public advertisement. 4 L.P.A No.350 of 2023 & analogous cases 3. Our attention has been drawn to an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A No.334 of 2022 constituting one of us (Navneet Kumar, J.) by which the challenge laid to the order passed in W.P(S) No.2792 of 2016 and analogous cases has failed and the Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed. 4. In L.P.A No.334 of 2022, the Division Bench referred to L.P.A No.303 of 2022 and analogous cases which were dismissed holding as under: “48. It appears from the impugned order and the fact is admitted that all the appellants were appointed after 19.04.2010. Once the orders have been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as in the case Surender Paswan & Ors. (Supra) wherein the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7374 of 1995 decided on 07.04.1997 by refusing the prayers made on behalf of the legal heirs of the Chowkidars appointed in village within the year 1990 and 1995, the same ultimately culminated into Special Leave Petition converted to the Civil Appeal i.e. the case of Surender Paswan & Ors. (Supra) and wherein this Court has passed the following direction as would appear from paras-17 & 18 thereof, which reads as under: “17. As a result, the only course remaining is to direct implementation of the last direction contained in the order dated 7.4.1997, that is, to have a fresh open selection process on merits. However, in view of the subsequent events, certain modifications are required in regard to the authority to conduct the fresh selections and in regard to age relaxation for the appellants and the respondents who were earlier appointed and whose appointments have been found to be invalid / irregular. 18. We therefore dispose of this appeal with the following directions: (i) The direction contained in the High Court's order dated 7-4-1997 to hold fresh selection process for the posts of Chowkidars is reiterated. (ii) Having regard to the fact that the Bihar Chowkidar Gradation Rules. 2006 have come the selections will be done by the Selection Committee constituted as per the said Rules, in accordance with the said Rules, instead of by the District Collector. (iii) The appellants and Respondents 4 to 27 will be entitled to apply for the post, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the said Rules. However, age relaxation shall be given in the case of the appellants and Respondents 4 to 27 and they will be entitled to apply, irrespective of their present age, subject to fulfilment of eligibility requirements. (iv) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to initiate the process of selection and complete the same within six months and the present till incumbents will be entitled to continue as Chowkidars purely on ad hoc basis.”” selection and appointment, into force; such 49. It appears that L.P.A. No. 437 of 2014 which subsequently was converted into W.P.(P.I.L.) No.1048 of 2016 wherein also the similar issue has been taken note based upon the order passed in that regard in W.P.(S) No. 2072 of 2007 wherein, by filing an 5 L.P.A No.350 of 2023 & analogous cases affidavit it was informed that the services of all the legal heirs of the Chowkidars had been dispensed with who have got service on the basis of inheritance after 19.04.2010. 50. Herein also the appointments are made after 19.04.2010. Once the order has been passed by the Constitutional Court more particularly the ratio has been decided herein by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same having taken the force of the law of land and such the same is binding even in absence of any statutory rule. 51. Here the argument of the writ petitioner that the appointment was prior to coming into effect of rule of 2015 and hence their services should not have been dispensed with, according to our considered view, the decision of dispensing with the services has been taken on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan & Ors. (Supra) and the order passed by this Court in W.P.(P.I.L.) No.1048 of 2016 therefore, even in absence of any rule once the Court of law has declared such appointment to be contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the same has to go. 52. Accordingly, in such circumstances, decision has been taken for dispensing with the services, the same according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. This Court has discussed the factual aspect and coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge where from it is evident that the learned Single Judge has also given due consideration of the implication of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan & Ors. (Supra) on the basis upon which the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 has been declined to be interfered with.” 5. Having regard to the decisions rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, these Letters Patent Appeals do not survive and, accordingly, are dismissed. 6.
Arguments
Miten Mahali, aged about 35 years, s/o Sri Chhutu Lal Mahali, r/o village- Raghnathpur, PO-Adhardih, PS-Nimdih, District-Saraikela-Kharsawan (Jharkhand) ……….. Appellant 2 L.P.A No.350 of 2023 & analogous cases Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Saraikela-Kharsawan, PO, PS & Districit- Saraiakela-Kharsawan. 5. The Circle Officer, Nimdih, PO & PS-Nimdih, District-Saraikela- Kharsawan. …. ... Respondents With L.P.A No. 349 of 2023 Shivdeo Gope, age 40 years, s/o Shri Jalsu Gope, r/o village-role Badhaiya, Post Office-Tanger, Police Station-Chanho, District-Ranchi(Jharkhand) ……….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi. …. ... Respondents 6. Hilariyus Horo, s/o Shri Chamra Munda, r/o village-Kathkunwari, PO- Mahuwagaon, PS-Lapung, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 7. Baleshwar Baraik, son of Sri Litu Baraik, resident of Village-Late, Post Office-Late, Police Station-Lapung, (District-Ranchi Jharkhand). 8. Sahdeo Ahir, son of Late Jhaman Ahir, resident of Village- Balu, Post Office- Kokdoro, Police Station-Pithora, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). 9. Ram Dayal Lohra, son of Sri Sukara Lohra, resident of Village- Haril Jolha Toli, Post Office- Bisha Khatanga, Police Station-Mandar, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). 10. Phoolchand Oraon, son of Sri Donde Oraon, resident of Village- Nehalu Amba Toli, Post Office- Nehalu, Police Station-Bedo, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). 11. Dilip Gope, son of Sri Pahlu Mahto, resident of Village- Malgo Dhadha Toli, Post Office-Lapung, Police Station-Lapung, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ………………Petitioners/ Proforma Respondents With L.P.A No. 439 of 2023 1. Juria Hembrom, aged about 31 years, s/o late Diru Hembrom, r/o village- Hoyohatu, PO-Jharajhara, PS-Toklo, District-West Singbhum, Jharkhand. 3 L.P.A No.350 of 2023 & analogous cases 2. Rajendra Tanty, aged about 32 years, s/o late Raghunath Tanty, r/o village-Mundiyadal, PO & PS-Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand 3. Babulal Tanty, aged about 44 years, s/o late Shivath Tanty, r/o village Sillphori, PO-Jamid, PS-Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand 4. Madan Gwala, aged about 49 years, s/o late Bomo Gwala, r/o village- Barhakate, PO-Jamid, PS-Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand ……….. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having officiating from Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S-Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, officiating from Chaibasa, PO-Chaibasa, PS-Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum. …. ... Respondents 4. Jawaharlal Tanty, s/o Shri Raj Kishore Tanty, r/o village-Jaipur, PO-Kera, PS-Toklo, District-West Singbhum, Jharkhand ……Petitioner/Proforma Petitioner CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellants For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I --------- 13th March 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. In this batch of Letters Patent Appeals, the appellants seek to challenge the common order dated 21st June 2022 passed in W.P(S) No.2792 of 2016 and analogous cases. 2. The writ Court after having taken note of the orders passed by
Decision
Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) sudhir