SUPREME COURT RULES ON HEREDITARY APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SERVICE

The Judgment in the Case of Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar and Others, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18983 of 2023) was delivered by Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna on 2^nd April 2025.This judgment mainly deals with the constitutional validity of a rule allowing hereditary appointment of village chaukidars in Bihar. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, striking down the provision as unconstitutional.

Facts of the Case

In Bihar, there was a historical practice of appointing village chaukidars (Village Watchmen) for lifetime service, during which family members often assisted with the duties. Upon the chaukidar’s death or incapacitation, a family member, typically nominated by the chaukidar, would take over the role. In this case, the father of Respondent no. 7 applied for his son’s appointment as a chaukidar under the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules 2014, but the application was rejected because it was submitted after the father’s retirement. Respondent no. 7’s subsequent Writ Petition challenging this rejection was dismissed by the High Court. The Petitioner union, a registered trade union, then filed a Special Leave Petition arguing against the High Court’s decision to strike down a provision in the rules. This challenged provision had allowed a chaukidar to nominate a dependent for appointment one month before retirement, but the High Court found it to be unconstitutional, citing violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Issues

1. Whether the hereditary appointment provision under the 2014 Rules violated Articles 14 and 16.
2. Whether the High Court could strike down a rule not formally challenged in the Writ Petition.
3. Whether public employment can be treated as a hereditary right.

Petitioner Contentions (Union)

The Petitioner union argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by striking down the proviso, as it was not under challenge. It contended that the proviso was legal and valid and that the order was passed without notice to its members, thus violating principles of natural justice. It further submitted that the rule aimed to address recruitment challenges in Naxal-affected areas.

Respondent Contentions (State & Others)

On the other hand, the Respondents supported the High Court’s finding that public employment cannot be inherited. They emphasized that Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity in public service and prohibits employment by descent. They cited precedents including Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and Surender Paswan v. State of Bihar[2] to argue that hereditary appointments violate constitutional norms.

Supreme Court

The Apex Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, declaring the proviso unconstitutional. It held that public employment cannot be treated as a hereditary privilege and must be based on open competition and merit. While recognizing that the rule was not specifically challenged, the Court ruled that constitutional courts have the authority to strike down manifestly unconstitutional subordinate legislation, even suo motu, when it directly relates to the matter before them. The Court emphasized that this power must be exercised sparingly and with care.

Parichaya Reddy

Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

[1]AIR 1961 SC 564

[2](2010) 6 SCC 680

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled Franchise Business Legal Tips can be viewed at the link below:

https://youtu.be/yYY9FXEknwM?si=-3SkQU_V9rAwuOV1