JAGDANAND MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all 17 persons (appellants herein), some of them already retired and others yet to retire and were/are the employees of Home Department as Chowkidar, moved applications for appointment of their legal heirs as Chowkidars on hereditary basis on account of Circular issued from the State of Jharkhand from time to time. Admittedly, these 17 appellants are not the party in W.P.(S) No. 2072 of 2007 filed by one Nandan Lohra who sought his appointment on the post of Chowkidar in Village Raghunathpur P.S. Chanho, District Ranchi taking the plea that his name was recommended by the entire villagers for the appointment as Chowkidar of the said village on retirement of his father as Chowkidar. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the learned Writ Court observing that public post cannot be given to the legal heirs of the retired employees. A direction was also given to the State that all authorities concerned should take care of the matter that after the commencement of the Constitution of India, there cannot be any appointment on a public post on the basis of inheritance and there ought to be a public advertisement and the concerned candidate must compete with the other eligible candidates. The appellants have apprehension in their mind that their legal heirs will not be getting the appointments on account of the judgment of learned Single Judge. It is for that reason, they moved I.A. No. 5618 of 2014 seeking leave of the appeal to the Court to file accompanied L.P.A. in which there is also a delay of 1038 days, condonation thereof is sought through the medium of I.A.No. 5617 of 2014.

(2.) During pending of the instant matter, Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants by way of supplementary affidavit, brought to the notice of the Court that after the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2072 of 2007 a communication dated 23.05.2014 has been sent to all the Deputy Commissioners of the State by the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand for not making any appointment of the Chowkidars on the basis of inheritance and there is reference to the order of the learned Single Judge in the said communication. He, however, while giving an instance of Deoghar District, stated that aforesaid communication of 23rd May, 2014 was received by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on 29.05.2014 and in derogation to the said communication, he made 9 appointments of Chowkidars on 30.05.2014. Apprehension in the mind of Mr. Tandon was that it is quite possible that such like appointments have been made in other districts. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing for the State, however, was not aware of any appointments made after passing of the judgment of the learned Single Judge or issuance of the aforesaid direction by the Home Department dated 23.05.2014. He further submitted that State has now made Jharkhand Chowkidar Gradation Rules, 2015 for appointment of Chowkidars and in terms of those Rules, no appointments can be made in terms of inheritance.

(3.) The Court in the aforesaid background of facts sought a complete report from Mr. Rajesh Kumar with regard to each district of the State apprising the Court, whether any appointment(s) has been made by the Deputy Commissioner(s) concerned in derogation to the communication sent by the Home Department on 23.05.2014 in which reference is also made to the Single Bench judgment of this Court handed down in the aforesaid W.P.(S) No. 2072 of 2007. Despite taking three opportunities, he has not been able to provide the complete data to the Court for its perusal. It is not in good taste.