P&H High Court Upholds Rajat Kumar’s Village Chowkidar Appointment, Says Deputy Commissioner Is Not Bound By Subordinate Recommendations

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner, as the competent appointing authority, was bound by the recommendations of the subordinate authorities when selecting a village Chowkidar.

The court held

The Court held that it found no illegality, perversity, or error of law in the Single Judge’s judgment dismissing the writ petition.

It also directed

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and any pending civil miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The Deputy Commissioner initiated the process to appoint a Chowkidar for Village Shahpur Nurhad, and 21 applications were received. The Assistant Collector Grade-II-cum-Deputy Tehsildar recommended the appellant, Rohit Kumar, for appointment; the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) also recommended him. The Deputy Commissioner nevertheless appointed respondent No. 6, Rajat Kumar, as Chowkidar.

¶ 2–4

The appellant’s challenge before the Divisional Commissioner and his subsequent writ petition were dismissed, leading to this intra-Court appeal.

¶ 2–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner, as the competent appointing authority, was bound by the recommendations of the subordinate authorities when selecting a village Chowkidar.

¶ 8–9

ii.2. Whether the appointment of respondent No. 6, and the dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition, disclosed a legal infirmity warranting appellate interference.

¶ 6, 9–12

03Law Applied

Rules 3 and 4 of the Haryana Chowkidara (Watchman) Amendment Rules, 2018 prescribe the appointment criteria and vest the selection of a village watchman in the Deputy Commissioner, who must invite applications and conduct the selection in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

¶ 8

The Deputy Commissioner is not bound by subordinate authorities’ recommendations and may independently assess candidates’ comparative merit and suitability.

¶ 9

Judicial interference with the competent authority’s selection is ordinarily warranted only where the decision is shown to be tainted by mala fides, arbitrariness, or another legal infirmity.

¶ 10

The Court also considered M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, Union of India v. N.P. Dhamania, and Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, noting that the first two concern reasoned decision-making and that the latter recognises that a selection recommendation does not itself create a right to appointment.

¶ 7.1–7.3

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Divisional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had considered the candidates’ qualifications and other relevant credentials, including age, educational qualifications, and availability, and had given reasons for selecting respondent No. 6.

¶ 6, 7.1

Because the Deputy Commissioner held the selection authority under the 2018 Rules, the subordinate authorities’ recommendations in favour of the appellant did not bind him.

¶ 8–9

The Court found no basis to conclude that the appointment was vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or another legal infirmity, and held that the cited authorities did not establish a right to appointment for the appellant.

¶ 7.1–7.3, 10–11