Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1163 (PAT)

Sri Kant Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2004-11-24

NAVIN SINHA

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner claims to have been discharging the duties as Evazi Dafadar. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been doing so since 1992. The name of the petitioner is alleged to have been recommended for appointment in the nomination roll stated to have been prepared on 18.3.1992 as contained in Annexure-1. it is the contention of the petitioner that though he has been discharging his duties as such till date he has not been paid any remuneration. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is the contention in the counter affidavit that no direct appointment shall be made on the post of Dafadar and that the decedents of Ex dafadar would duly be considered in accordance with law. The fact that the name of the petitioner finds place in the nomination roll prepared on 18.3.92 is not disputed by the respondents. Annexure B to the counter affidavit contains the extract of the proceedings said to have taken place on 4.7.2001, wherein the case of the petitioner was considered at serial 51. The same was rejected stating that he was the grandson of a retired Dafadar and studied upto Class VII which was less than the prescribed qualification for appointment on Class IV post. 4. In pursuance of Annexure B having been submitted before this Court the petitioner filed IA No. 5738/2004 for amendment of the writ application seeking to challenge the rejection of his candidature in the proceedings of 4.7.2001 at Annexure B as aforesaid. This Court upon hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the State permits amendment of the writ application and IA No. 5738 of 2004 stands allowed. 5. The only controversy falling for consideration in the present case would be if the reasons assigned by the respondents for rejection of the petitioners candidature by stating that he possessed qualification upto Class VII only and which was not the eligibility criteria for appointment on Class IV post can be said to be valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon Rule 29 of the Bihar Chaukidari Manual submitted that the requisite qualification for appointment as Dafadar was that the candidate should be literate, which also could not be made an absolute condition of appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon Rule 29 of the Bihar Chaukidari Manual submitted that the requisite qualification for appointment as Dafadar was that the candidate should be literate, which also could not be made an absolute condition of appointment. He further placed reliance upon Rule 22(j) of the Manual to submit that literacy would mean that the candidate should be able to read and write a little more than his name only. The submission being that in view of the provisions of the Manual the reasons given for rejection of the petitioners candidature was arbitrary. 6. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the post of Dafadar was not to be filled up by direct appointment. 7. This Court having considered the submission of the counsel for the parties holds that the reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner with regard to his educational qualification is contrary to Rule 29 of the Bihar Chaukidari Manual and therefore the proceedings dated 4.7.2001 in so far it rejects the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of his having qualification upto Class VlI only is not in accordance with law. The same is accordingly set aside. 8. In so far as the contention of the State that the post of Dafadar shall not be filled up by direct recruitment, Rule 29 would prescribe that Dafadars are ordinarily to be nominated from amongst the Chaukidars fit for promotion. In the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has in fact been discharging the duties of Evazi Dafadar since 1992 and that his name also finds place in the nomination roll, a fact not disputed by the respondents. In the circumstances of the case this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned proceedings dated 4.7.2001 in so far as it seeks to reject the candidature of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and is therefore set aside. The respondents shall now be required to consider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Chaukidari Manual. 9. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for alleged arrears of salary for the periods that he has worked as Evazi Dafadar, this Court finds that the contentions to some extent are disputed by the respondents in the Counter affidavit. 9. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for alleged arrears of salary for the periods that he has worked as Evazi Dafadar, this Court finds that the contentions to some extent are disputed by the respondents in the Counter affidavit. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to pass any positive order in this regard. The petitioner if so advised, may prefer a representation in respect thereof placing on record all such materials in support of his claim of having worked for the period in question. Should the petitioner do so within a period of three weeks from today it is expected that the respondents shall duly consider the same and pass appropriate order thereupon. 10. This application accordingly stands allowed to the extent of directions as indicated above.