JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners, in this writ petition, pray to quash the order dated 03.05.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, whereby the services of the petitioners as Chaukidar, were terminated. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is absolutely bad as the petitioners were appointed much prior to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007. He submits that no departmental proceeding was initiated before removing the petitioners. 4. Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petitioners were appointed as Chowkidar, solely on the basis that their respective fathers were Chaukidars. On the basis of inheritance appointment was granted to the petitioners. He further submits that this mode of appointment by way of inheritance being illegal, has been struck down by the Court, so the petitioners have been terminated. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Chaukidar on the sole criteria of inheritance. No government post can be filled up solely on the basis of inheritance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 SCC Online SC 1154 at paragraph 23 thereof has held as under: 23. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the respondent that the appointment is not on compassionate grounds but the same be called as varas hakka cannot be accepted. Even if the same be called as varas hakka the same is not supported by any scheme and even the same also can be said to be violative of Article 14 as well as Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 6. Further, in Nandan Lohra vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007 it has been held as under: (4) Having heard learned counsel for both the side and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the fact that there is no legitimate right vested with the petitioner to be appointed as Chaukidar of village Raghunathpur, PS Chanho, District Ranchi. Moreover, the grounds stated in the petition that the entire villagers have requested that petitioner should be appointed, cannot be a reason for appointment of the petitioner as a Chaukidar. In view of these facts, there is no case made out by the petitioner to be appointed as Chaukidar. Morever, after the commencement of the Constitution of India in force and specifically as per the Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, public post cannot be given to the legal heirs of the retired employee. There ought to be a public advertisement and equal opportunity should have been given to the eligible candidates. In view of this fact also, merely because petitioner is the son of a retired Chaukidar, he cannot be appointed merely because he is his legal heir. There ought to be a public advertisement and equal opportunity should have been given to the eligible candidates. In view of this fact also, merely because petitioner is the son of a retired Chaukidar, he cannot be appointed merely because he is his legal heir. State authorities should take care of the matter that after commencement of the Constitution of India, no public post can be given as an inheritance to the son/daughter of a retired employee. There ought to be a public advertisement and candidates must be selected on the basis of their merits. I, therefore, direct the respondents-State Authorities that henceforth, no appointment shall be made without public advertisement on the post of Chaukidar. The provision ought to be applied in the light of the constitutional provisions and there ought to be a public advertisement and equal opportunity should have been given to all the eligible candidates. 7. The appointment in a public post by way of inheritance is void ab initio as the same is against the constitutional mandate. The State, thus, passed the impugned order removing the petitioners who were admittedly appointed solely on the ground of inheritance. Thus, the State was correct in removing the petitioners. No benefit can be granted to the petitioners who were appointed illegally against the scheme of the Constitution. 8. In that view, I find no illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.