Rule 5(7)’s nominated-dependent appointment provision violates Articles 14 and 16.

The petitioner sought appointment as a Chaukidar in place of her father under the Bihar Chaukidar (Appointment) Rules, 2014. She challenged the rejection of her claim by Memo No. 1326 dated 18 August 2021, contending that Notification No. 1896 dated 5 March 2014 unlawfully excluded her on the ground that she was a married daughter. She sought to have the rejection and notification set aside and to be appointed

The State relied on the Division Bench decision in *Devmuni Paswan v. State of Bihar*, LPA No. 508 of 2022, which had set aside the relevant proviso to Rule 5(7) of the 2014 Rules as unconstitutional; the Supreme Court had declined to interfere with that decision

1. Whether the petitioner could obtain appointment under the 2014 Rules after the relevant provision governing such claims had been set aside as unconstitutional

2. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the rejection and to Notification No. 1896 could succeed in light of the subsequent decisions concerning Rule 5(7)

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require public posts to be filled in accordance with constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

In *Devmuni Paswan v. State of Bihar*, LPA No. 508 of 2022, the Division Bench held the relevant proviso to Rule 5(7) of the Bihar Chaukidar (Appointment) Rules, 2014, unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16 and set it aside; the Supreme Court declined to interfere with that judgment on 19 March 2025

The petitioner’s claim rested on the 2014 Rules’ provision concerning appointment of a Chaukidar’s nominated dependent. The High Court treated the Division Bench ruling, as left undisturbed by the Supreme Court, as removing the legal basis for that claim. It therefore held that the petitioner could not claim the benefit of Rule 5(7)

The judgment did not separately determine the petitioner’s broader constitutional challenge to Notification No. 1896.

dismissed the writ petition.