Legal heirs of an unappointed candidate acquire no right to claim appointment to the post.

The post of Kotwar of Village Tata became vacant after the death of the incumbent.

Following publication of notice, applications, verification of character, and consideration of the Gram Panchayat’s proposal, Kholbahra Das was appointed Kotwar by the Naib Tahsildar on 24 August 2012.

Budhram Gada, husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioners Nos. 2–6, challenged the appointment before the Sub-Divisional Officer, alleging that his application had not been properly considered and that the recruitment process was irregular.

The SDO dismissed the appeal on 28 March 2014, finding no illegality in the appointment.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Kholbahra Das was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher, resigned as Kotwar, and his resignation was accepted on 6 February 2014.

Parmanand Nirala was thereafter appointed as temporary Kotwar on 3 March 2014.

Budhram’s challenge before the Additional Commissioner was dismissed on 26 October 2021, and his revision before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed on 20 April 2026.

During the revision, Budhram died on 24 July 2025, and his legal heirs were substituted.

The petitioners then invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the orders and appointment of one of them as Kotwar.

1. Whether the appointment of Kholbahra Das as Kotwar of Village Tata suffered from illegality or procedural irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the legal heirs of Budhram Gada could claim appointment to the post of Kotwar in his place after his death, despite Budhram never having been appointed to that post.

3. Whether the petitioners could challenge the subsequent appointment of Parmanand Nirala as temporary Kotwar in proceedings directed principally against the original appointment of Kholbahra Das.

The Court applied the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which permits interference where the subordinate authority has acted without jurisdiction or committed a patent illegality, but does not authorize reappraisal merely because another view is possible.

It further applied the principle that appointment to the post of Kotwar does not create an inherited or vested right in the family of a former Kotwar or in the heirs of an unsuccessful claimant.

The Court also held that legal representatives cannot claim appointment in substitution of a deceased candidate who himself had never secured appointment to the post.

A challenge to a subsequent appointment must be directed against the specific order by which that appointment was made.

The Court found that Kholbahra Das’s appointment followed the prescribed process, including publication of notice, consideration of applications, police character verification, and consideration of the Gram Panchayat’s proposal; therefore, the concurrent revenue authorities correctly found no illegality in the original appointment.

Budhram’s objection that his application was not considered and that the process was arbitrary was not sufficient to establish jurisdictional error or patent illegality.

The Court further held that, since Budhram was never appointed as Kotwar, his heirs could not inherit or obtain the post merely by virtue of his challenge or family relationship.

Any grievance concerning Parmanand Nirala’s later temporary appointment had to be raised by specifically challenging the order dated 3 March 2014; the petitioners could not obtain relief against that appointment through a challenge focused on the original appointment of Kholbahra Das.

It held that the appointment of Kholbahra Das was not shown to be illegal, that Budhram’s legal heirs had no vested or hereditary right to the post, and that no jurisdictional error was demonstrated in the Board of Revenue’s order.

The writ petition under Article 227 was accordingly dismissed, and the prayer to quash the revenue orders and direct appointment of one of the petitioners as Kotwar was rejected.