IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5179 of 2004
MD.HAKIM, son of Md. Habib, resident of village - Benta, P S -
Hayaghat, District - Darbhanga.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. The Collector, Darbhanga.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Darbhanga.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga.
5. The Circle Officer, Hayaghat, Darbhanga.
6. The Officer Incharge, Hayaghat Police Station, Darbhanga.
-----------
05. 19.8.2010 Case of the petitioner was considered by the committee
headed by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga in the meeting dated
13.11.2002. The committee decided to reject the claim of the petitioner
for appointment on the ground that the petitioner was not nominated by
any person. Since the appointment was being considered on
compassionate ground the absence of nomination frustrated the case of
the petitioner for consideration.
Petitioner takes the stand that his case for appointment
under the compassionate head was wrongly considered by the
committee and the rejection of his case for non-availability of
nomination by any person to that extent seems to be based on non est
ground.
The Court is not willing to investigate the circumstance
under which case of the petitioner came to be considered by the
committee in its meeting dated 13.11.2002 but taking note of the fact
that appointment on the post of Chaukidar is now an appointment on
Class-IV under the State and rule in this regard has been duly notified,
which is 2006 Rule. Appointment will now have to be made on the basis
of proper advertisement etc. Since it is the stand of the petitioner that
2
his case needs to be considered afresh in terms of the rules, therefore,
the earlier rejection of his case may not come in his way as and when
advertisement is made for such appointment.
The Court is inclined to entertain such a request. Let the
case of the petitioner be considered on its own merit if he fulfils the
requirements of 2006 Chaukidari Manual Rules irrespective of the
rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the committee in its meeting
dated 13.11.2002.
Petitioner claims that he was made to work or is working as
a stop-gap arrangement after the death of the previous Chaukidar but no
payments have been made. Petitioner has made a claim to the concerned
authorities for payment which he informs the Court, is not decided till
date. The Court expects the competent authority to examine the claim
of the petitioner and communicate his decision for the outcome thereof
to the petitioner on his application contained in annexure-4 series,
provided the petitioner files a fresh application in this regard with
supporting materials.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)