DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) As the common question of law is involved in both these L.P.As., they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
(3.) The appellant in L.P.A. No.196 of 2012 is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17th November 2011, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No.2072 of 2007, whereas the appellant in L.P.A. No.404 of 2012 is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8th August 2012, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 2065 of 2010. In both these appeals, the appellants had claimed to be appointed to the post of Chaukidar, being the sons of the retired Chaukidar, in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Chaukidari Manual, then in force, and various circulars / orders issued by the State Government from time to time. Both these writ applications have been dismissed on the common ground by the Hon'ble Single Judge, that the post of Chaukidar cannot be claimed as a matter of right, on the basis of inheritance, rather any such appointment, after coming into force of the Constitution of India, shall be violative or Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that after commencement of Constitution of India, there cannot be any appointment on the public post on the basis of inheritance, and appointments to the public post have to be made through public advertisement. The Hon'ble Single Judge has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Surendar Paswan and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2010 (3) JCR 161 (SC), laying down the law as follows:- "2. This matter relates to the appointment of Chowkidars (village watchmen) in Madhepura District, Bihar. The appellants allege that in the pre-constitutional set-up, the practice in Bihar was to appoint village Chowkidars for lifetime who used to work without any leave or retirement. During his illness or absence, any of his family members would assist him in performance of his duties; and when he died or became infirm, usually his family member nominated by him would take over the functions of Chowkidar, though the post was not strictly hereditary. In the post-constitutional set-up, there was a gradual change in the village administration and several lifetime or hereditary or semi-hereditary appointments gave way to regular public service with appointments based on equal opportunity. This Court in Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India, 1987 (1) SCC 631 held that an opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all citizens equally; that any preference shown in the matter of public employment on the ground of descent alone was unconstitutional; and that any provision which conferred a preferential right to appointment on the descendents or other relatives of persons either in service or persons who retired from service, merely because they happened to be the children or wards of such employees, would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution."? ;