Daya Shankar Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13759 of 2021 ====================================================== Daya Shankar Singh Son of Sri Ram Kripal Yadav @ Ram Kripal Singh Resident of village Mohanpur, P.O. Kamrawn, P.S. - Basudeo Dihri, P.S. Dinara, District- Rohtas (Sasaram).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Department, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate-Cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Rohtas at Sasaram.

4.

The District Screening Committee for Compassionate Appointment, Rohtas at Sasaram.

5.

The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram. 6.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shekhar Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GP-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-08-2023 On mentioning slip being filed for priority listing, the matter has been listed today under the heading 'To Be Mentioned'.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner's claim appointment by virtue of being son of the chowkidar. The claim for selection is sought under Rule- 5 (7) of the Bihar Chowkidar Cadre (Amedment) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2014 Rules').

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13759 of 2021(2) dt.25-08-2023 2/3 petitioner's claim cannot be entertained now in view of decision of this Court dated 25-02-2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 508/2022 (Devmuni Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) whereby and whereunder Rule- 5(7) of the Rules has been held to be ultra vires of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside.

5. Reliance is placed on paragraph No. 17-20 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- "17. Hence, this Court is of the view that the proviso to Rule 5 (7) of '2014, Rules' which reads as under:

"परतुक- (क) चचौककीददार सवंर कक कर्मचदारकी अपनकी वदार्मक्य सकवदाननवृनत्ति ककी नतनथि सक कर सक कर एक रदाह पूवर्म कक प्रभदाव सक स्वनचच्छिक सकवदाननवृनत्ति एवर चचौककीददार पद पर अपनक ददारदा नदानरत नकसकी आनश्रित कको ननयकोनजित करनक कक नलिए आवकदन कर सककगदा। (ख) सदारदान्य प्रशदासन नवभदाग ददारदा सरय-सरय पर अवरदानरत न्यपूनतर एवर अनरकतर उम सकीरदा सरबररकी प्रदावरदान उन पर लिदागपू रहकगदा। (ग) स्वनचच्छिक सकवदाननवृनत्ति कक पशदात् ननयतुक्त व्यनक्त कक आनश्रित कको इस परन्तुक कदा लिदाभ अनतुरदान्य नहहीं हकोगदा। (घ) स्वनचच्छिक सकवदाननवृनत्ति कदा इचच्छितुक चचौककीददार सरवगर्म कक व्यनक्त कको सकवदाननवृनत्ति ककी अपनकी इनचच्छित नतनथि सक कर सक कर एक रदाह पूवर्म अपनक पदस्थिदापन नजिलिदा कक नजिलिदा पददानरकदारकी कदा अपनदा आवकदन दकनदा हकोगदा।"

is contrary to the express provisions of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13759 of 2021(2) dt.25-08-2023 3/3 Constitution being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, accordingly, the aforementioned provision is set aside. Hence it could not further the cause of the appellant and the appellant could not claim any benefit under Rule 5 (7) of '2014, Rules'.

18. Accordingly, this Court finds and holds that the respondents cannot be directed at this stage to reconsider the application of the father of the appellant for grant of such benefit of employment of his ward in accordance with the provisions of '2014 Rules'.

19. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.

20. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned authority through the Registrar General for taking further steps in identical issue, if any."

6. This Court would find that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench, the relief claimed by the petitioner relying on Rule- 5(7) of the 2014 Rules, which has been declared ultra vires, is not tenable.

7. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U