Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1259 (PAT)

Umendra Tiwary v. State Of Bihar

2004-12-17

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order, as contained in annexure 4 dated 12.9.1998, whereby and whereunder the Sub-divisional Officer has directed that the petitioner does not come within the purview of consideration for the post of Chowkidar, as he is son-in-law of ex-chowkidar/Dafadar, who had nominated him. A further prayer has also been made to issue direction upon the respondents to regularise his services on the post of chowkidar. 3. According to the case of the petitioner, it appears that he was nominated by one Vyas Pandey, who is father-in-law of the petitioner, to work at his place as chowkidar in the year 1990. The petitioner after his nomination was allowed to continue on the post of chowkidar on ad hoc basis till 1997 and, ultimately, by order, as contained in annexure 4, he has been excluded from the zone of consideration for regular appointment on the post of chowkidar. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was allowed to work on ad hoc basis since 1990 and he was nominee of his father-in-law Vyas Pandey, he could not have been excluded from the zone of consideration for his appointment on the post of regular chowkidar. 5. According to the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit, it appears that though the petitioner was nominated by his father-in-law, he was not allowed to work even on ad hoc basis because he was son-in-law of ex-chowkidar/Dafadar who does not come under the purview of the circular dated 20.12.1995 for consideration for appointment on the post of chowkidar. 6. From annexure 4, it appears that the Sub-divisonal Officer, Daud Nagar, held the petitioner as not eligible for the post of chowkidar, as he is son-in-law of ex-chowkidar/Dafadar. 7. The Collector of a District is the appointing authority of chowkidar/Dafadar and there is nothing in the counter affidavit to show as to whether at any point of time the case of the petitioner was considered by the Collector of the District for his regularisation/appointment on the post of chowkidar. The fact that the petitioner is the son-in-law of ex-chowkidar/Dafadar, Vyas Pandey, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is nominee of Vyas Pandey. 8. The fact that the petitioner is the son-in-law of ex-chowkidar/Dafadar, Vyas Pandey, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is nominee of Vyas Pandey. 8. From Circular dated 20th December, 1995, which has been placed on record, marked as annexure A, it appears that wife, son, nephew or brother and Nati have been recognised as the persons, who can be nominated by ex-chowkidar/Dafadar to work in his place. 9. From annexure 1 series, it appears that Vyas Pandey, who has nominated this petitioner in his affidavit, has stated that he has only one daughter who is married to this petitioner. From this affidavit, it is manifest that Vyas Pandey, has no son and in that view of the matter, he nominated this petitioner, his son-in-law. 10. According to the Circular of the State government, as referred to above, dated 20th December, 1995, son of the son-in-law has been included in the zone of consideration for the post of chowkidar, in case he is a nominee of the ex-chowkidar/Dafadar and since the petitioner is the son-in-law of the ex-chowkidar/Dafadar, in my opinion, he may also come within the zone of consideration. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Aurangabad, is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and in case, a representation is filed by the petitioner for his regularisation on the post of chowkidar in Obera Police Station, the same shall be considered and disposed by respondent No. 2, within a period of three months from the date of its filing In accordance with law. It is also made clear that the District Magistrate while disposing of the representation of the petitioner shall consider the relevant circulars and the provisions laid down in chowkidar/Dafadar manual and, thereafter, shall pass speaking order in accordance with law. 12. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.