Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014 are void ab initio, and therefore no appointment can be ordered under them.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Singh, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Bihar to issue an appointment letter under the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014 on compassionate grounds, after his father had recommended him in 2020 and the Selection Committee had recommended his appointment in June 2022. The petitioner argued that the High Court's earlier decision in Devmuni Paswan v. State of Bihar, which declared the 2014 Rules unconstitutional, should not apply retrospectively to his case because the recommendation was made before the judgment. The Court held that a rule declared unconstitutional is void ab initio and therefore cannot be applied either prospectively or retrospectively. Consequently, no appointment could be ordered under the invalidated Rules. The petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014, declared unconstitutional, can be applied retrospectively to grant a compassionate appointment.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing issuance of an appointment letter under the invalidated Rules.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 16
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- constitutional validity
- void ab initio
- Articles 14 and 16
- writ of mandamus
- Bihar Chaukidari Cadre Rules
- appointment grievance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18781 of 2024
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Singh Son of Sri Harinarayan Singh Resident of Village Ward
no. 09, Baghmari Harnahia and P.S. Sursand, District-Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the principal secretary Home Department,
Government of Bihar at Patna.
2. The District Collector-Cum-Chairman, Compassionate Appointment
Committee, District-Sitamarhi.
3. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi.
4. The Superintendent of Police, District-Sitamarhi.
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, District-Sitamarhi.
6. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), District-Sitamarhi.
7. The In-Charge Officer, General Administration Section, District-Sitamarhi.
8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Belsand, District-Sitamarhi.
9. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pupri, District-Sitamarhi.
10. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi, District-Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
“A. For issuance of a Writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate Writ
commanding the authorities concerned to issue
appointment letter in the terms of the selection-
Patna High Court CWJC No.18781 of 2024(3) dt.20-04-2026
2/4
list prepared in the terms of Rule-5, Sub-Rule
(Ka) of the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre
(Amendment) Rules, 2014.
B. For passing any other
order/direction/s or appropriate Writ/s in the
facts and circumstances of the instant Case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that his father
who was working as a Chaukidar, prior to his retirement on
28.2.2021 filed an application on 28.11.2020 recommending the
petitioner for his appointment in terms of the Bihar Chaukidar
Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014 which had the provision for
appointment of a Chaukidar on compassionate ground.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that along with others
the case of the petitioner came to be considered by the Selection
Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi in its
meeting held on 4.6.2022. The name of the petitioner figures at
serial no.18 of the minutes of the said meeting wherein the
Committee recommended him for appointment.
5. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be mentioned
here that the aforesaid Rules of 2014 came for consideration by
a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devmuni Paswan
vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2023 (2) PLJR 425 wherein this
Court held that the provisions contained therein is contrary to
the express provisions of the Constitution and holding the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.18781 of 2024(3) dt.20-04-2026
3/4
to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the
Rules were set aside.
6. It may be mentioned here itself that the said
judgment was challenged in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA
(C) no. 18983 of 2023 [Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar
Panchayat (Magadh Division) vs. State of Bihar & Ors.] and by
order dated 19.3.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed
the special leave petition.
7. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the Committee having considered and
recommended for appointment of the petitioner in its meeting
on 4.6.2022 itself on which date the Rules of 2014 were in
existence and the same having been set aside much later on the
passing of the judgment in the case of Devmuni Paswan (supra)
on 25.2.2023, the judgment would not have a retrospective
application on the case of the petitioner and as such the
respondents be directed to issue the letter of appointment
appointing the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar.
8. It may be stated here that in the opinion of the
Court, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has no force and is fit to be rejected. On a Rule being
declared unconstitutional the effect would be of it being void ab
Patna High Court CWJC No.18781 of 2024(3) dt.20-04-2026
4/4
initio and thus there can be no question of the same having been
set aside prospectively.
9. The Court having held the Rules of 2014 to be
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and having
set aside the same, no relief as prayed by the petitioner can be
granted.
10. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U
Checking your session…