Chaukidar’s Son’s Appointment Claim Fails As Patna HC Applies Ruling Striking Down Bihar Chaukidari Rules’ Nominee-Appointment Provision.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner could claim consideration for appointment as a Chaukidar on the basis of his father’s nomination and voluntary retirement under Rule 5(7) of the 2014 Rules

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner could not obtain the claimed benefit under the invalidated provision of Rule 5(7).

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition

01Facts

The petitioner sought a direction requiring the State authorities to consider him for appointment as a Chaukidar under the Bihar Chaukidar Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014.

His claim rested on his father’s nomination of him and his father’s voluntary retirement on 30 April 2022.

The petitioner said his representation seeking appointment had not been decided

p. 2

The State relied on the Division Bench’s decision in Devmuni Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., LPA No. 508 of 2022, which set aside the relevant provision of the 2014 Rules; the Supreme Court had declined to interfere with that judgment

p. 2, 4

No one appeared for the petitioner at the hearing

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner could claim consideration for appointment as a Chaukidar on the basis of his father’s nomination and voluntary retirement under Rule 5(7) of the 2014 Rules

pp. 2–3

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s claim survived after the provision on which it was based had been set aside and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with that decision

p. 4

03Law Applied

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require public posts to be filled through a process consistent with equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

In Devmuni Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., the Division Bench held that the proviso to Rule 5(7) of the Bihar Chaukidar (Appointment) Rules, 2014—which permitted a Chaukidar nearing retirement to seek voluntary retirement and nominate a dependent for appointment—violated Articles 14 and 16 and set it aside

pp. 3–4

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that judgment in SLP (C) No. 18983 of 2023

p. 4

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s asserted entitlement depended on the nomination and voluntary-retirement mechanism in Rule 5(7)

p. 2

Because the Division Bench had set aside the relevant provision as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court had declined to interfere, the provision could no longer support the petitioner’s claim

pp. 3–4

The Court therefore concluded that the basis of the claim no longer survived

p. 4