logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 086 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Jharkhand
Case No : W.P. (S) No. 1442 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
Parties : Brijendra Murmu Versus State of Jharkhand & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate. For the Respondents: Gaurav Raj, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 09-03-2026
Head Note :-
Jharkhand Chowkidar Cadre Rules -

Comparative Citation:
2026 JHHC 6217,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Jharkhand Chowkidar Cadre Rules, 2015

2. Catch Words:
- reservation
- residence
- appointment
- Chowkidar
- writ petition
- quash
- direction

3. Summary:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his appointment as “Chowkidar” on the ground of non‑residence in the designated Beat. He sought quashing of the decision dated 21.01.2026 and issuance of an appointment letter. The Court referred to its earlier judgments in W.P.(S) No.1498 of 2025 and W.P.(S) No.7243 of 2025, which held that residence‑based reservation for the post is not mandatory and that candidates from neighbouring Beats may be appointed. Applying those precedents, the Court found the impugned decision contrary to law. Consequently, the decision was set aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case and issue an appointment letter if he meets the qualifications. The writ petition was allowed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the impugned Decision dated 21.01.2026, which is part of Annexure-7 to the writ petition (relating to the petitioner), whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of “Chowkidar”, pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2024, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of the concerned ‘Beat’, rather he is a resident of outside the ‘Beat Area’.

                  2.1. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and appoint him on the post of “Chowkidar”.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was provisionally selected, but the provisional list was withdrawn on the ground that he is not a resident of said ‘Beat’ Area.

4. The issue of reservation on the ground of residence in respect of appointment to the post of “Chowkidar”, has been dealt with by this Court and the Division Bench of this Court.

                  4.1. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 in W.P.(S) No.1498 of 2025 (Pintu Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other Analogues cases, while interpreting Clause-9 and the Rules of the “Jharkhand Chowkidar Cadre Rules, 2015”, has held that it is not mandatory that the person should be a resident of the same ‘Beat’ to get appointment as “Chowkidar”. It has been further held that the person of the nearby ‘Beat’, can also be considered for appointment. It is necessary to quote para-28 of order dated 19.09.2025, which reads as hereunder:-

                  “28. We are of the view that the purpose behind incorporation of Clause 9 in the Advertisement No.01 of 2024 is that the authorities should know about the ‘Beat’ of a particular candidate so that as far as possible, his/her appointment is to be made within his/her residential ‘Beat area’ or in the neighbouring ‘Beat’ for smooth functioning of the duty of ‘Chowkidar’. This interpretation of the advertisement will be in consonance with the provisions of the Rules, 2015 and the same will also achieve the purpose behind it. On the contrary, if the interpretation of Clause 9 of the said advertisement as suggested by the petitioners is accepted, it will lead to absurdity and will also be inconsistent with the provisions of the Rules, 2015.”

                  4.2. Further, this Court vide order dated 06.01.2026 in W.P.(S) No.7243 of 2025 (Deepak Das Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), considering the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, has allowed the said writ petition, holding therein that there cannot be reservation based on the permanent residence of the applicants.

5. The impugned decision clearly suggests that only on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of the same ‘Beat’, the case of the petitioner was not considered, thus the reasoning and the grounds to reject the petitioner’s claim, are not in accordance with law.

6. From what has been discussed hereinabove, in my opinion, this case is covered by the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1498 of 2025 and other Analogues cases, and also the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.7243 of 2025. The impugned Decision dated 21.01.2026, which is part of Annexure-7 to the writ petition (relating to the petitioner), is hereby set aside.

                  6.1. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and issue a letter of appointment, if he is otherwise qualified and if there is no other legal impediment.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal