Jitendra Kumar vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2119 of 2023
CNR No. BRHC010995702022
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar Son of Late Parikshan Ray Resident of Ward No.- 04, Village-
Sirauli, Police Station- Riga, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home (Police),
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home (Police), Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Collector, Sitamarhi.
4. The Circle Officer, Riga, District- Sitamarhi.
5. The Officer-in-charge, Riga Police Station, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Gangesh Gunjan, GP-7
Ms. Aishwarya Riti, AC to GP-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for
following relief/s :-
“………..That this application is
being filed for issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders, of direction/directions to the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on the
post Choukidar in place of his father
Parikshan Ray who has taken voluntary
retirement and nominated the petitioner to
be appointed on the post of Choukidar in
light of the notification bearing Memo No.
1896 dated 05.03.2014 issued by the
Additional Secretary, Home (Police)

Patna High Court CWJC No.2119 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
2/4
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
basis of the relief sought by the petitioner is the notification
issued by the Home Department, Government of Bihar, namely,
the “ fcgkj pkSfdnkj laoxZ la”kks/ku ( fu;ekoyh ) 2014 ”. In terms of the
said Rule, the father of the petitioner had requested the State
authorities for appointment of the petitioner in his place to the
post of Chaukidar. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner had filed a representation in this regard, but the same
was not disposed of. Hence, the present writ petition has been
filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already
been adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court in LPA No. 508 of 2022 (Devmuni Paswan Vs. The State
of Bihar and Ors.), vide judgment dated 25.02.2023, whereby
the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that Rule 5 (7) of the Bihar
Chaukidar (Appointment) Rules, 2014, is violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and has accordingly set
aside the said provision. Learned counsel for the State further
submits that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Division
Bench has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Patna High Court CWJC No.2119 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
3/4
in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) SLP No. 18983 of 2023
(Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat Vs. State of
Bihar and Ors.) .
5. For better appreciation of the case, this Court feels
it necessary to quote the relevant paragraph 12 and 17 of the
judgment dated 25.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in LPA No. 508 of 2022, as under :-
“12. Furthermore, it appears
that the aforesaid ‘2014, Rules’ is in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India because post of
Chaukidar in the State of Bihar is a public
post. If any single public post is required to
be filled up in a State or its organization,
such selection and appointment must be in
consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Even after 75 years of
independence, the States are violating the
constitutional mandate by not following
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
insofar as filling up of public post in the
State/organization is concerned.
17. Hence, this Court is of the
view that the proviso to Rule 5 (7) of
‘2014, Rules’ which reads as under:
ijarqd&
¼d½ pkSdhnkj loaxZ ds deZpkjh viuh
ok/kZD; lsokfuo`fÙk dh frfFk ls de ls de ,d ekg
iwoZ ds izHkko ls LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ,o pkSdhnkj in
ij vius }kjk ukfer fdlh vkfJr dks fu;ksftr djus
ds fy, vkosnu dj ldsxkA
¼[k½ lkekU; iz”kklu foHkkx }kjk le;
- le; ij vo/kkfjr U;wure ,oa vf/kdre mez&lhek
laca/kh izko/kku mu ij ykxw jgsxkA
¼x½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ds i”pkr~
fu;qDr O;fDr ds vkfJr dks bl ijUrqd dk YkkHk
vuqekU; ugha gksxkA
¼?k½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk dk bPNqd
pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds O;fDr dks lsokfuo`fÙk dh viuh

Patna High Court CWJC No.2119 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
4/4
bfPNr frfFk ls de ls de ,d ekg iwoZ vius
inLFkkiu ftyk ds ftyk inkf/kdkjh dk viuk
vkosnu nsuk gksxkA
is contrary to the express
provisions of the Constitution being
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and, accordingly, the
aforementioned provision is set aside.
Hence it could not further the cause of the
appellant and the appellant could not
claim any benefit under Rule 5 (7) of
‘2014, Rules’.
5.1 The judgment dated 25.02.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 508 of 2022 has been
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No(s) SLP No. 18983 of 2023 (Bihar Rajya
Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) .
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 19.03.2025, has
declined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court, i.e., the judgment dated 25.02.2023
passed in LPA No. 508 of 2022.
6. In view of the aforesaid position, the basis of the
claim of the petitioner no longer survives. Accordingly, the
present writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28/10/2026
Transmission Date NA