Md. Mazharul Haque v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21521 of 2018 ====================================================== Md. Mazharul Haque S/o Md. Farooque, Resident of Village Lal Tole Kolhatle, P.S. Amaur, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
The Collector cum District Magistrate, Purnea. 3.
The Compassionate Appointment Committee headed by Collector Cum District Magistrate, Purnea.
4.
The Senior Addl. Collector, General Admin Deptt., Purnea. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. N. Mishra, Adv For the Respondent/s :
Md. N.H.Khan -SC-1 Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.
The fact of the dispute is that within the time frame specified under the Chowkidari Cadre Rules 2006 as amended by 2014 amendment (hereinafter referred as '2006, Rules'), the petitioner had made an application for appointment by way of nomination of his son in his place.
The petitioner's claim for appointment of his son, however, has been rejected under a general notice dated 10.07.2018 by assigning the following reason: 18 ममो० फफारूक ममो० मजहरूल गफा०-लफाल इस मफामले में पफायफा गयफा कक आवलेदन हक टमोलल,
2/4 दफाकखिल करनले कल पमो०+थफानफा अममौर, अंचल कतिकथ- 24.05.2017 एवअं स्वकचच्छिक - अममौर, कजलफा-पूकर्णियफा सलेवफाकनवृकति कल इकचच्छिति कतिकथ-30.06. 2017 तिक उनकले नफाकमति पुत्र दफारफा शवक्षकरक यमोग्यतिफा सअंबअंधल अहतिर पूरफा नहहीं करतिले हैं। अतिएव गवृह आरक्षल कवभफाग, कबहफार सरकफार कले पत्रत्रांक- 5444, कदनत्रांक-22.06.2018 कल कअंकडिकफा 4 में कनकहति पफावधफान कले आलमोक में इनकफा दफावफा स्वलकफार यमोग्य नहहीं हव। The 2006 Rules provides an opportunity to a chowkidar to seek voluntary retirement and to nominate a dependent for appointment in his place subject to the statutory prescription regarding making of applications and requisite educational qualification of the dependent etc. The petitioner's counsel submits that the requisite educational qualification had been acquired by the time the Committee considered the pending claim of various applicants, including the petitioner. It is further submitted that this is a benevolent scheme and in view of the fact that petitioner's son, who is the intended beneficiary acquired the qualification prior
3/4 to consideration by the Committee, the petitioner's claim ought not to have been rejected.
Rule 5(2) of the 2006 Rules provides that for appointment on the post of chowkidar, the minimum educational qualification is 10th Pass (Matriculate). While making provision for appointment of a nominee/dependent of a chowkidar, the Rule does not in any way relax the requirement of minimum educational qualification. Therefore the nominee/dependent is required to be qualified in all respects, including educational qualification.
There is no factual dispute that the petitioner's son was not possessing the requisite educational qualification for appointment, either on the date of nomination, or till the date of petitioner's voluntary retirement.
Considering the rival submissions, this Court would observe that the fact that petitioner's son acquired qualification after his retirement, even though before consideration, cannot help the petitioner's case. The requirement of educational qualification cannot be extended till such time the claim for appointment is considered. The submission regarding benevolence is also misplaced as appointment in question is under the 2006 Rules and can only be availed, subject to
4/4 fulfilling the statutory requirements, including requisite educational qualification, and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the 2006 Rules.
Since the petitioner's son was admittedly not possessing the requisite educational qualification on date of application, or even till the petitioner's voluntary retirement date, he could not have been nominated, and had no right to be considered or to be appointed as chowkidar.
There is no merit in the case and the same is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U