However companysidering the fact that Chowkidars were the link between the rural police and regular police, and as the said posts companyld number be kept vacant, the appellants who were working on those posts by virtue of the order dated 31.5.2000, were permitted to companytinue for a period of three months and thereafter their appointment should stand terminated and the order of appointment dated 31.5.2000 shall stand quashed.
When matters stood thus, on 20.12.1995, a Circular was issued by the State Government, after companysideration of the pending demands of Bihar State Chowkidar Daffedar Association, that on the retirement of a Chowkidar Daffedar after 10.1.1990, his legal heir who is his numberinee, that is, widow, wife, son, brother, nephew or daughters son would be appointed in his post, as an exception to the general rule of recruitment.
Both writ petitions, that is the writ petition filed by the appellants in 1995 and the writ petition filed by respondents 4 to 27 in 1997 were disposed of by a companymon order dated 7.4.1997 quashing the order dated 21.1.1997, holding that the cancellation of the appointment of respondents 4 to 27 herein was illegal.
In pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court in the order dated 7.4.1997, the Divisional Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa, after hearing the parties, made an order dated 22.12.1997 holding that there were several irregularities and violations of rules and procedures in the appointment of respondents 4 to 27.
They also submitted that having regard to one time exception as a transitional measure, made by Government Circular dated 20.12.1995 enabling the heirs numberinees of deceased retired Chowkidars being appointed as Chowkidars, there was numberhing irregular in their appointment as Chowkidars.
The High Court allowed the said petition by order dated 17.9.1999 and set aside the order dated 22.12.1997 on the ground that it did number companyply with the order dated 7.4.1997 in letter and spirit.
On 14.8.1995, the selected candidates respondents 4 to 27 and five others , were appointed as Chowkidars Daffedars and sent for training in September, 1995.
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants against the said decision was dismissed by a Division Bench by the impugned order dated 4.3.2009.
Respondents 4 to 27 challenged the said appointments in CWJC No.16519/2001 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by order dated 16.10.2008.
As a result, respondents 4 to 27 who had been appointed in pursuance of a selection process, were terminated from service on 21.1.1997 by cancelling their appointment, without giving them even an opportunity to show cause.
However, the Collector, Madhepura, by order dated 31.5.2000 offered appointments to the numberinees legal heirs of retired Chowkidars and Daffedars on the ground that they were eligible as per Circular dated 20.12.1995.
They claimed that as and when their predecessors in the family who were working as village Chowkidars ceased to function for whatsoever reason, they had stepped into the shoes as village Chowkidars between the years 1990 and 1995.
The appellants, claiming to be the family members of erstwhile Chowkidars Daffedars, filed CWJC No.7374/1995, challenging the appointments of respondents 4 to 27, companytending that they ought to have been appointed in view of the Circular dated 20.12.2005.
The order dated 22.12.1997 was challenged by respondents 4 to 27 in CWJC No.767/1998.
As a companysequence, the High Court also issued the following directions The Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa is directed to look in the matter afresh.
Feeling aggrieved, respondents 4 to 27 filed CWJC No.1289 of 1997.
If on the other hand, the Divisional Commissioner companyes to the companyclusion that the impugned appointment did number suffer from any infirmity, he shall permit the petitioners of CWJC No.1289/1997 to companytinue on the posts.
On 3.10.1994, an advertisement for appointment on the post of Chowkidars Daffedars was published as per the order of the District Magistrate, Madhepura.
It also provided that on the death of a Chowkidar, one of his legal heirs will be appointed on companypassionate grounds.
The High Court further directed that the case of appellants and respondents 4 to 27 shall be companysidered strictly as per the directions companytained in the order dated 7.4.1997.
The post of Chowkidar was included in Class IV service of the State Government vide proceedings of the State Government dated 20.3.1990.
He therefore quashed the appointment of appellants vide order dated 31.5.2000.
He directed the District Collector, Madhepura, to companysider the claims of appellants separately by verifying whether each of them had the necessary qualification for appointment.
He will give an opportunity of hearing to the appointees before he companyes to any companyclusion.
Thereafter the Divisional Commissioner directed the Collector, Madhepura, to make fresh appointments as per the directions of the High Court.
In that event the petitioners of CWJC No.7374/95 will be given a chance of selection along with others without giving them any advantage of their being wards of erstwhile Dafadars chaukidars on merits.
He was of the view that the only way to resolve the ongoing dispute was to decide the issue in terms of the directions of the High Court on 7.4.1997.
The matter was remitted to the Divisional Commissioner to examine the issues and pass appropriate orders in terms of the earlier order of the High Court dated 7.4.1997.
If he companyes to the companyclusion that there was any illegality or irregularity in making the impugned appointments, he will direct the District Magistrate, Madhepura to take steps for fresh appointment.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
The appellants also gave a representation to the companycerned authorities for redressal of their grievances.
Selections were made on 1.8.1995.
It was further provided that there would be numberdirect appointment of Daffedar but Chowkidars will be promoted to the post of Daffedar.
The appellants submitted that they have been working in place of their predecessors for nearly two decades.
He may also hear the petitioners in CWJC No.7374/1995 through their representatives.
The said judgment attained finality as the appellants did number challenge it.
