Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 347 (PAT)

Sakalwa Devi v. State of Bihar

2004-03-25

body2004
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider their case for appointment on the post of village chowkidar of village Beniganj in Circle No.4 in the District of Seikhpura. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this application, petitioner no. 1, Natho Yadav, died and in his place, his wife Sakalwa Devi, has been directed to be substituted by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2000. It is further submitted that petitioner no.2, Mantu Kumar, is the son of the daughter of deceased petitioner Natho Yadav, and as per Rule 41 of the Bihar Chawkidari Manual, petitioner no. 2 has lodged his claim for his appointment as village chowkidar in place of his maternal grand-father. At the same time, it is also stated that the post of Village Chowkidar in question now has been filled up and respondent no. 6 has been appointed, and, therefore, the petitioners are also challenging the appointment of respondent no.6. 3. From the materials on record, it appears that respondent no. 6 was appointed on the post of village chowkidar with effect from 15.1.1993 and till date he is continuing on the post and this writ application was filed on 26.11.1998, almost after five years of the appointment of respondent no. 6 on the post of village chowkidar. 4. Besides this, there is nothing on record to show that even at the time of appointment of respondent no. 6 as village chowkidar, petitioner no. 2 put forth his claim before the concerned District Magistrate in the light of Rule 41 of the Manual aforesaid. 5. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 6 obtained his appointment on the post of village chowkidar after forging certain documents and playing fraud upon the authorities. If it was so, the petitioner could have challenged the appointment of respondent no. 6 by the earliest possible. But, at no point of time, it was challenged, rather, it appears that he lodged his claim some time in the year 1996 for his appointment on the post of village chowkidar, which, admittedly, was not vacant in the year 1996. 6. Since respondent no. 6 by the earliest possible. But, at no point of time, it was challenged, rather, it appears that he lodged his claim some time in the year 1996 for his appointment on the post of village chowkidar, which, admittedly, was not vacant in the year 1996. 6. Since respondent no. 6 has continued on the post of village chowkidar for more than ten years by now, in my opinion, it will be too late for this Court to express any opinion as to the validity or otherwise of appointment of respondent no. 6 nor any relief can be granted to the petitioner on the well known maxim of Law that delay defeats equity. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the appointment of respondent no. 6. This application is accordingly, dismissed.