Radha Mohan Prasad, J. - (1.)The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 14/MU dated 31-12-96 as contained in Annexure 6, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Chaukidar has been rejected and the claim for appointment of respondent No. 6 in place of his deceased father Muni Lal Paswan has been accepted in the light of the provisions contained in Home (Police) letter No. 10129 dated 6-11-91.
(2.)It appears that one Muni Lal Paswan was Chaukidar in Circle No. 2/3, Bariarpur P.S. in the district of Munghyr Due to illness of Muni Lal Paswan, the petitioner started working in his place in leave vacancy. It is claimed that subsequently on 14th March, 1991 the petitioner was appointed as Chaukidar on regular basis in the said circle and was paid till December, 1992. However, when from January, 1993 the payment of his salary was not made, he filed CWJC No. 5502 of 94 seeking direction to the respondents to pay his up-to-date salary. This Court, by judgment and order dated 9th March, 95, contained in Annexure-3 held that the petitioner had not been provided with any order of appointment to the post of Chaukidar till date. However, the Court held that as the respondents were taking work from the petitioner the said post cannot be treated as vacant and the order of appointment in favour of respondent No. 6 (Annexure-8 to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 6 filed in the said case) was wholly illegal. However, the Court directed that the petitioner be paid salary from January, 93 till date and to fill up the post in accordance with law after considering cases of both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6. The Court also directed that respondent No. 6 be not given any weightage on the ground of compassionate appointment. Regular appointment was directed to be made immediately and must be within three months and further that till such regular appointment is made, the petitioner would continue to function as Chaukidar and receive salary upto such period.
(3.)On 3-7-95, vide letter No. 633 (vide Annexure-4) petitioner's service was thereafter terminated and the service of respondent No. 6 was confirmed. The validity of the said order was also challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 4817 of 95, which was finally disposed of on 26-7-96 (Annexure-5). During the pendency of this writ petition Annexure-A to the counter- affidavit was filed in the said case, wnereby the District Magistrate cancelled the appointment of respondent No. 6. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing that part of the impugned order became infructuous. However, this Court directed the authority to allow the petitioner to continue against the post of Chaukidar until regular appointment is made, and further to show that the matter relating to appointment of the petitioner be considered strictly in accordance with law. Thereafter, the present impugned order contained in Annexure-6 was passed.