Patna High Court
Mukesh PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the underlying notification provision has been declared unconstitutional.
Summary
Mukesh Paswan filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar to appoint him as Chowkidar in place of his father, relying on clause 3(II)(Ka) of Notification No. 1896 dated 05.03.2014. The respondents contended that the same notification had been struck down in Devmuni Paswan v. State of Bihar (2023) as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that a Special Leave Petition challenging that judgment had also been dismissed. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the provision was unconstitutional and found that the petitioner’s claim could not survive that precedent. Consequently, the Court held that there was no merit in granting the writ. The petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the provision in Notification No. 1896 dated 05.03.2014 authorising the appointment of the petitioner as Chowkidar is constitutionally valid.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the appointment in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Devmuni Paswan v. State of Bihar.
- Whether Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution preclude the appointment sought by the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. 14, 16
Subjects
- mandamus
- appointment
- constitutional validity
- Articles 14
- Articles 16
- public service
- Bihar
- Chowkidar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.845 of 2022
======================================================
Mukesh Paswan S/o Shiv Shankar Paswan, R/o Vill. - Rampur, P.S. -
Runnisaidpur, Dist. - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi.
5. The Officer In Charge of Runnisaidpur Police Station, Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N.H. Khan, SC- 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
“1. (I) For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of
"mandamus" directing and
commanding the respondents
authorities to provide the appointment
to the petitioner on the post of
Chowkidar in place of his father in
light of stipulation present at clause
3(II) (Ka) of the notification bearing
no. 1896 dated 05.03.2014.
Patna High Court CWJC No.845 of 2022(4) dt.18-03-2026
2/2
(II) For issuance of any
other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled for.”
3. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for
the respondents that the notification dated 5.3.2014 on which
the petitioner is placing reliance was the subject matter of the
case in Devmuni Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; 2023 (2)
PLJR 425 and this Court by its judgment dated 25.2.2023 set
aside the said provision as being violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that SLP(C)
no. 18983 of 2023 (Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat
(Magadh Division) vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) preferred against
the judgment of this Court in Devmuni Paswan (supra) has also
been dismissed by order dated 19.3.2025.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
and the matter having been settled up to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the Court finds no merit in the instant application.
5. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U
Checking your session…