In a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld a Patna High Court verdict which struck down a 2014 amendment in the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre Rules. The amendment allowed a serving Chaukidar to nominate his dependent kin for appointment a month prior to retirement — a practice the Court described as an unconstitutional attempt to “treat public employment as heritable property.”
The case was decided in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18983 of 2023, titled Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) vs State of Bihar & Others. The judgment was delivered on April 2, 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the claim of Devmuni Paswan (Respondent No.7), whose father — a retired village Chaukidar — had sought his son’s appointment under the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (BCC(A) Rules). However, the application was rejected on the ground that it was made after his retirement, violating Rule 5(7)(a), which required nomination one month before retirement.
Paswan challenged the rejection before the Patna High Court, but his writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. His appeal before the Division Bench (LPA No. 508 of 2022) also failed. Interestingly, the High Court went further and struck down the entire proviso (a) to Rule 5(7), declaring it violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioner before the Supreme Court was a registered trade union — Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) — represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan. The union claimed to represent existing Chaukidars who stood to benefit from the 2014 rule.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in striking down a statutory provision which was not formally under challenge?
- Whether the 2014 amendment to the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre Rules violated constitutional guarantees of equality in public employment?
- Whether the petitioner-union, which was not a party before the High Court, had the locus to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court?
- Whether the High Court could act suo motu in striking down subordinate legislation?
Court’s Observations
Delivering a detailed opinion spanning decades of constitutional jurisprudence, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and strongly endorsed the High Court’s approach.
The Court emphasized that allowing succession-based appointments in government service undermines the bedrock principle of meritocracy, guaranteed under Article 16.
“Even as we celebrate 75 years of our Constitution… some States still follow archaic models of employment, as if public service is a hereditary right.”
Citing its landmark rulings, including Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1961 SC 564) and Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 631, the Bench reiterated that descent-based appointments are constitutionally impermissible, barring compassionate appointments in death-in-harness cases or schemes based on valid classification.
In scathing terms, the Court observed:
“The brazen manner in which the State of Bihar derogated from constitutional provisions to favor a handful of employees working as Chaukidars… much to the detriment of those waiting for public employment, is deeply concerning.”
The Court also highlighted the inherent unfairness of assuming that only the children of existing Chaukidars would be interested in these jobs:
“To assume that members of the general public are not interested in taking up employment as Chaukidars in Naxal-affected areas, is a mere surmise not backed by data.”
On the High Court’s Power to Strike Down the Rule
A major contention raised was that the High Court struck down Rule 5(7)(a) suo motu, even though it was not challenged by the parties. The Court, however, defended this rare use of power:
“It is not only the duty of writ courts to enforce the rights of individuals who approach them, but also to guard against breach of Fundamental Rights of others.”
While cautioning against the routine use of such power, the Bench held:
“A subordinate legislation that is manifestly unconstitutional and in the teeth of binding precedent may be struck down even in the absence of a formal challenge — provided the State is given full opportunity to respond.”
The Court clarified that such suo motu declarations of unconstitutionality must be “rare and exceptional,” and do not apply to primary legislation, which enjoys a stronger presumption of constitutionality.
Locus of the Union and Natural Justice
The petitioner-union argued that its members were affected without being heard before the High Court. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim:
“No enforceable right of the members has been infringed. Since the offending proviso is unconstitutional, the foundation of the union’s case crumbles.”
The Bench also noted that the State Government (Respondent No.1) had not challenged the High Court’s judgment — which further weakened the petitioner’s case.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court concluded that the Patna High Court was justified in striking down the provision. The impugned proviso violated Article 16, failed the test of reasonable classification, and unjustly restricted entry to public service based on lineage.
“Public employment must be based on merit and fair selection, not on ancestry or descent.”
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
