ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the instant case may also be heard together with L.P.A. No. 303 of 2022 i.e. L.P.A. No. 312 of 2022 and L.P.A. No. 324 of 2022, since, similar issues are involved in all these three appeals. 3. Considering the same, all the three appeals are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Before entering into the merit of the issue, it requires to deal with the issue of limitation, since, all the appeals have been filed after the period of limitation. I.A. No. 10659 of 2022 in L.P.A. No. 303 of 2022 5. This interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the instant Appeal. 6. Considering the sufficient cause that the appellants are poor persons and they could not arrange the required money for filing of the instant L.P.A. before this Hon'ble Court, well within time and hence, there is delay of 32 days in filing the present L.P.A. thus, the delay of 32 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 7. There is no rebuttal reply to the Interlocutory Application filed in the instant L.P.A. application. However, the oral objection has been made not to condone the delay. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the reasons assigned and taking into consideration the fact that the issues are to be dealt with on merit, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned. 9. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant application is hereby condoned so the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 10655 of 2022 in L.P.A. No. 312 of 2022 10. This interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the instant Appeal. 11. 9. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant application is hereby condoned so the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 10655 of 2022 in L.P.A. No. 312 of 2022 10. This interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the instant Appeal. 11. Considering the sufficient cause that the appellants are poor persons and they could not arrange the required money for filing of the instant L.P.A. before this Hon'ble Court, well within time and hence, there is delay of 32 days in filing the present L.P.A. thus, the delay of 32 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 12. There is no rebuttal reply to the Interlocutory Application filed in the instant L.P.A. application. However, the oral objection has been made not to condone the delay. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the reasons assigned and taking into consideration the fact that the issues are to be dealt with on merit, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned. 14. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant application is hereby condoned so the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 11775 of 2022 in L.P.A. No. 324 of 2022 15. This interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the instant Appeal. 16. Considering the sufficient cause that the appellants are poor persons and they could not arrange the required money for filing of the instant L.P.A. before this Hon'ble Court, well within time and hence, there is delay of 32 days in filing the present L.P.A. thus, the delay of 32 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 17. There is no rebuttal reply to the Interlocutory Application filed in the instant L.P.A. application. However, the oral objection has been made not to condone the delay. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the reasons assigned and taking into consideration the fact that the issues are to be dealt with on merit, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned. 19. However, the oral objection has been made not to condone the delay. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the reasons assigned and taking into consideration the fact that the issues are to be dealt with on merit, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the appeal needs to be condoned. 19. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant application is hereby condoned so the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 303 of 2022 With L.P.A. No. 312 of 2022 With L.P.A. No. 324 of 2022 20. The appeals are under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent directed against the common order passed in writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 6318 of 2016, W.P. (S) No. 2802 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3081 of 2016 decided on 21.06.2022 by which the decision of the respondents for dispensing with the services of the writ petitioners have been refused to be interfered with. 21. The brief facts of the case appear to be identical in all these appeals, in sum and substance, the same is being reiterated herein as per the pleadings made by the parties in the writ petition, which is reads as under: 22. The appellants were appointed as village Watchmen (Choukidars) on the ground of ‘Awaji’ in place of their father/other close relatives in the scale of Rs.4440-7440/-, Grade pay- 1300/- in view of the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa vide Memo No. 376 dated 13.08.2010 and Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, vide Memo No. 28/Chou dated 18.04.2011 and Memo No. 57 dated 17.08.2011 and the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma vide Memo No. 85 dated 14.02.2011 and 477 dated 13.07.2011. 23. It is relevant to mention here that the appellants were appointed on the post of Choukidars as per the norms and procedure prescribed at the relevant point of time and also fulfils all the eligibility criteria prescribed for such appointment. 24. It is also relevant to mention here that the appointment of the Choukidars (village Watchmen) as per prevailing criteria in the erstwhile State of Bihar was to appoint the Choukidars (village Watchmen) for life time, who have to work without any leave or retirement. 24. It is also relevant to mention here that the appointment of the Choukidars (village Watchmen) as per prevailing criteria in the erstwhile State of Bihar was to appoint the Choukidars (village Watchmen) for life time, who have to work without any leave or retirement. During his illness or absence any of his family members would assist him in performing his duties and when he dies or became incapable to perform his duty, usually his family member, nominated by him would take over the function of Choukidar though the post was not strictly hereditary. 25. The post of Choukidar was included in the Class-IV service of the State Govt. vide proceedings of the State Govt. dated 20.10.1990 and 3.10.1994. in the erstwhile State of Bihar, however in absence of any Rule, the appointment of Choukidars in the State of Jharkhand as well as that of the present appellants were done in view of the circulars and guidelines dated 17.01.1990, 6.11.1991 and 20.12.1995 of the erstwhile State of Bihar. 26. The appellants were appointed/adjusted in accordance with the circulars and guidelines prevalent at the relevant point of time by agreement entered into with the Govt. and the Choukidars which termed as one time settlement/adjustment which cannot be termed to be hereditary, several Choukidars were appointed on compassionate ground and as such it cannot termed as illegal appointment or violative of Article 14 and 16 of the of the Constitution of India. 27. Thereafter pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007, a communication dated 23.05.2014 has been sent to all concerned of the Govt. of Jharkhand for not making any appointment of the Choukidars on the basis of inheritance. 28. The State of Jharkhand framed Jharkhand Choukidar Cadre Rule, 2015 through notification No. 2032 dated 07.04.2015 prescribing service condition and procedure for appointment of Choukidars in the State of Jharkhand according to which all appointment of Choukidars shall be made by advertising the post for which application has to be submitted in the office of Deputy Commissioner and selection shall be made through physical test and written examination. 29. 29. That one of the aspirant of Choukidar moved to this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007 Nandan Lohara vs. State of Jharkhand and this Hon’ble Court vide its judgment and order dated 17.11.2011 was pleased to dismiss the writ application with observation that 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 merit and accordingly direction was issued to the Respondent State authorities that henceforth, no appointment shall be made without public advertisement on the post of Choukidars and equal opportunity should have been given to all the eligible candidates. The L.P.A. No. 437 of 2014 filed against the aforesaid judgment of this Hon’ble Court was dismissed on the ground of limitation. 30. The in the erstwhile State of Bihar, dispute arose regarding appointment of Choukidars and the matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and finally the issue was set up at rest in the case of Surendra Paswan vs. State of Bihar, 2010 (3) JCR 161 (SC) which was disposed of with following observations: (i) Directions contained in the High Court’s order dated 04.07.1997 regarding the selection process for the post of Choukidars is reiterated. (ii) Having regard to the fact that the Bihar Choukidar Recruitment Rules, 2006 has come into force, the selection will be done only by the Selection Committee, constituted as per the said Rules instead of by the District Collector. (iii) Appellant and respondents 4 to 27 will be entitled to apply for the post subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the said Rules. However, age relaxation shall be given in the case of appellants and respondents 4 to 27 and they were entitled to apply subject to fulfillment of their eligibility requirements. (iv) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to initiate the process of selection and complete the same within six month and till such selection and appointment, the present incumbent will be entitled to continue as Choukidars purely on ad-hoc basis. 31. (iv) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to initiate the process of selection and complete the same within six month and till such selection and appointment, the present incumbent will be entitled to continue as Choukidars purely on ad-hoc basis. 31. It is relevant to point out here that appointment of the appellants were made prior to coming into force of the Rule, 2015 and there was a direction by this Hon’ble Court that henceforth, no appointment shall be made without public advertisement on the post of Choukidars and therefore the appointment of the appellants made prior to coming into force of the Rule, 2015 which has no retrospective effect and as such the appointment of the appellants already made as per the existing circulars/guidelines prevalent at the relevant point of time cannot be cancelled on this ground. 32. This Hon’ble Court had issued direction that henceforth, no appointment shall be made without public advertisement on the post of Choukidars, but after the order this Hon’ble Court the Home Secretary issued direction to all the Deputy Commissioners to issue show cause notices to the working Choukidars and take stapes for removal of the services of the Choukidars appointed in between 19.04.2010 to 17.11.2011 (10.04.2010), and accordingly the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma (Garhwa) (Palamau) (Respondent No. 5) without adhering to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India issued order vide memo no. 480/Sha dated 02.05.2016 (memo no. 1030 dated 14.09.2016) (memo no. 30/Chou dated 06.04.2016) dismissing the appellants from service without following the due process of law. 33. That being aggrieved by such illegal and arbitrary order of dismissal, the appellants moved before this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 3081 of 2016 [W.P. (S) No. 6318 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 2802 of 2016] which was finally heard by a Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court along with other batch of cases whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge vide its judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 was pleased to dismiss the writ applications. 34. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6318 of 2016, W.P. (S) No. 2802 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3081 of 2016 by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, whereby the aforesaid writ applications in a batch of cases were dismissed. 35. 34. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6318 of 2016, W.P. (S) No. 2802 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3081 of 2016 by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, whereby the aforesaid writ applications in a batch of cases were dismissed. 35. It is evident that the writ petitioners had been appointed as Chowkidar on different dates and while continuing as such, their services have been dispensed with by passing an order on 14.09.2016 as has been appended herein as Annexure-5 to L.P.A. No. 303 of 2022. 36. The learned Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 196 of 2012 with L.P.A. No. 404 of 2012, wherein it was held in para-9 as under, refused to interfere with the said order, against which the present appeal. “9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AAG for the State, we are of the considered view that no fresh appointment LPA No. 196 of 2012 With LPA No. 404 of 2012 now can be made to the post of Chaukidar on the basis of inheritance only, on the ground that the candidate is the son of the retired/deceased Chaukidar. The law is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surender Paswan's case (supra), laying down the law as above. The Rules have also been framed by the State Government pursuant thereto, prescribing detailed procedure to be followed for the appointment to the post of Chaukidar, which is a public post, after advertising the post, giving equal opportunity to all. In that view of the matter, the claims of the appellants in both the L.P.A. would not survive for being appointment to post of Chaukidar, only on the basis of the recommendations made in their favour by their father, the retired Choukidars. The posts can be filled up only after public advertisement and the appellants may apply pursuant to the advertisement, if they are eligible for applying for the post, as per the Rules framed in the year 2015. The State Government is hereby, directed to apply the Rule uniformly in the entire State, and fill up all the posts of Chowkidar uniformly, in accordance with the Rules framed in 2015, without any further delay.” 37. The State Government is hereby, directed to apply the Rule uniformly in the entire State, and fill up all the posts of Chowkidar uniformly, in accordance with the Rules framed in 2015, without any further delay.” 37. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Rule for the purpose of appointment of Chowkidar has come into being on 07.04.2015 as would appear from Annexure-4 appended to the paper, therefore, appointment made prior to 07.04.2015 cannot be disturbed merely on the ground that the appointment so made is based upon the inheritance right. 38. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid legal issues have not been considered regarding the applicability of the subsequent Rule in the matter of appointment made prior to coming into effect of the said Rule and hence the impugned order suffers from infirmity and accordingly is fit to be set aside. 39. While on the other hand Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand has submitted by defending the impugned order that even though the Rule has come on 07.04.2015 but since the decision for dispensing the services of the petitioner has been taken by the State based upon the order passed in L.P.A. No. 196n of 2012 wherein the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the appeal has taken into consideration the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Surender Paswan and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 680 . Since the decision so taken by the State authority is in compliance to the direction passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court which after having decided the issue will be said to be the law of the land in view of the provision of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and hence even though the Rule has come on 07.04.2015 but since the decision was taken in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) the order impugned rightly has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge and hence the order impugned may not be interfered with. 40. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 41. 40. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 41. The issue which have been raised by the writ petitioners that the effect of the recruitment rule of the Chowkidar since as claimed by virtue of notification dated 07.04.2015 cannot have its retrospective application dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner. Based upon the aforesaid ground the impugned order of dismissal/termination of services have been challenged by the petitioners by filing these three writ petitions. 42. Learned counsel for the State had brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge about the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) wherein the direction has been passed to deal with the services of the Chowkidar who have been appointed on the basis of the right of inheritance. 43. Learned Single Judge by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) has declined to interfere with the order of dismissal by dismissing the writ petition, hence the present appeal. 44. There is no dispute that the effect of the Rule is to be given its operation subjectly unless specifically provided in the statute for its retrospective application. Herein admittedly, as evident from the Rule as contained in notification dated 07.04.2015 there is no reference of its retrospective application but the admitted fact is that the matter of appointment of Chowkidar on the basis of the right of inheritance has travelled to the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold as would appear from Paras-17 & 18 which reads as under: “17. As a result, the only course remaining is to direct implementation of the last direction contained in the order dated 7.4.1997, that is, to have a fresh open selection process on merits. However, in view of the subsequent events, certain modifications are required in regard to the authority to conduct the fresh selections and in regard to age relaxation for the appellants and the respondents who were earlier appointed and whose appointments have been found to be invalid/irregular. 18. However, in view of the subsequent events, certain modifications are required in regard to the authority to conduct the fresh selections and in regard to age relaxation for the appellants and the respondents who were earlier appointed and whose appointments have been found to be invalid/irregular. 18. We therefore dispose of this appeal with the following directions: (i) The direction contained in the High Court's order dated 7-4-1997 to hold fresh selection process for the posts of Chowkidars is reiterated. (ii) Having regard to the fact that the Bihar Chowkidar Gradation Rules. 2006 have come into force; the selections will be done by the Selection Committee constituted as per the said Rules, in accordance with the said Rules, instead of by the District Collector. (iii) The appellants and Respondents 4 to 27 will be entitled to apply for the post, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the said Rules. However, age relaxation shall be given in the case of the appellants and Respondents 4 to 27 and they will be entitled to apply, irrespective of their present age, subject to fulfilment of eligibility requirements. (iv) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to initiate the process of selection and complete the same within six months and till such selection and appointment, the present incumbents will be entitled to continue as Chowkidars purely on ad hoc basis.” 45. It further appears that herein also as would appear from Annexure-5 which contains the reference of L.P.A. No. 437 of 2014 which subsequently has been treated to be the Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (P.I.L.) No. 1048 of 2016. 46. The order passed in the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation has been perused by this Court wherein it is evident that the issue was of granting relaxation to such candidates who had been appointed on inheritance basis had been removed/terminated in compliance to the order passed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2011 rendered in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007. 47. 47. The co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, has also taken note of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) and in term thereof one affidavit was filed by the Home Department of the State of Jharkhand bringing the fact about dispensing with the services of all such Chowkidars has been brought to the notice who had been appointed on the basis of inheritance after 19.04.2010. 48. It appears from the impugned order and the fact is admitted that all the appellants were appointed after 19.04.2010. Once the orders have been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as in the case Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) wherein the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7374 of 1995 decided on 07.04.1997 by refusing the prayers made on behalf of the legal heirs of the Chowkidars appointed in village within the year 1990 and 1995, the same ultimately culminated into Special Leave Petition converted to the Civil Appeal i.e. the case of Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) and wherein this Court has passed the following direction as would appear from Paras-17 & 18 thereof, which reads as under: “17. As a result, the only course remaining is to direct implementation of the last direction contained in the order dated 7.4.1997, that is, to have a fresh open selection process on merits. However, in view of the subsequent events, certain modifications are required in regard to the authority to conduct the fresh selections and in regard to age relaxation for the appellants and the respondents who were earlier appointed and whose appointments have been found to be invalid/irregular. 18. We therefore dispose of this appeal with the following directions: (i) The direction contained in the High Court's order dated 7-4-1997 to hold fresh selection process for the posts of Chowkidars is reiterated. (ii) Having regard to the fact that the Bihar Chowkidar Gradation Rules. 2006 have come into force; the selections will be done by the Selection Committee constituted as per the said Rules, in accordance with the said Rules, instead of by the District Collector. (iii) The appellants and Respondents 4 to 27 will be entitled to apply for the post, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the said Rules. 2006 have come into force; the selections will be done by the Selection Committee constituted as per the said Rules, in accordance with the said Rules, instead of by the District Collector. (iii) The appellants and Respondents 4 to 27 will be entitled to apply for the post, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the said Rules. However, age relaxation shall be given in the case of the appellants and Respondents 4 to 27 and they will be entitled to apply, irrespective of their present age, subject to fulfilment of eligibility requirements. (iv) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to initiate the process of selection and complete the same within six months and till such selection and appointment, the present incumbents will be entitled to continue as Chowkidars purely on ad hoc basis.” 49. It appears that L.P.A. No. 437 of 2014 which subsequently was converted into W.P. (P.I.L.) No. 1048 of 2016 wherein also the similar issue has been taken note based upon the order passed in that regard in W.P. (S) No. 2072 of 2007 wherein, by filing an affidavit it was informed that the services of all the legal heirs of the Chowkidars had been dispensed with who have got service on the basis of inheritance after 19.04.2010. 50. Herein also the appointments are made after 19.04.2010. Once the order has been passed by the Constitutional Court more particularly the ratio has been decided herein by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same having taken the force of the law of land and such the same is binding even in absence of any statutory rule. 51. Here the argument of the writ petitioner that the appointment was prior to coming into effect of rule of 2015 and hence their services should not have been dispensed with, according to our considered view, the decision of dispensing with the services has been taken on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) and the order passed by this Court in W.P. (P.I.L.) No. 1048 of 2016 therefore, even in absence of any rule once the Court of law has declared such appointment to be contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the same has to go. 52. 52. Accordingly, in such circumstances, decision has been taken for dispensing with the services, the same according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. This Court has discussed the factual aspect and coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge where from it is evident that the learned Single Judge has also given due consideration of the implication of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan and Others (Supra) on the basis upon which the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 has been declined to be interfered with. 53. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs no interference. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeals stand, dismissed.