Jharkhand High Court Upholds District-Wise Chowkidar Selection, Clarifies Beat Residency Is Only Directory and Posting May Be Outside Beat for Cogent Reasons
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar has held that recruitment for the post of Grameen Chowkidar must be carried out on a district-wide basis rather than beat-wise. The Court clarified that while chowkidars are generally to be posted within their residential beat, they may be transferred to another area for cogent reasons. It further observed that the requirement for candidates to be residents of a particular beat is directory, serving as guidance but not decisive for selection. Upholding the district-level merit list under the Jharkhand Chowkidar Cadre Rules, 2015, the Court dismissed the petitions.
The writ petitions arose out of recruitment conducted by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Koderma pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2024 for appointment of Grameen Chowkidars. Petitioners Pintu Kumar, Ravindra Kumar, and Kanchan Kumari Sinha contested the provisional and final lists of shortlisted candidates prepared at the district level on the basis of category-wise cut-off marks.
The petitioners argued that Clause 9 of the advertisement mandated applicants to be permanent residents of their respective Beat areas, implying that merit lists should also be prepared at the Beat level. Petitioners alleged arbitrariness and discrimination, stating that certain Beat areas remained without Chowkidars since residents were not permitted to apply for other Beats. They further contended that eligibility criteria fixed in the advertisement could not be altered mid-process. Clause 11(Ka) of the advertisement, they argued, required preparation of a merit list in the ratio of 1:3 after the written examination, with 30% as the minimum qualifying marks.
The respondents submitted that the recruitment was conducted in compliance with earlier High Court orders in W.P.(S) No.960 of 2016, the Jharkhand Chowkidar Cadre Rules, 2015, and directions of the State Government. A district-level reservation roster approved by the Divisional Commissioner was followed. It was argued that preparing results Beat-wise would treat each vacancy as a single post, preventing the application of reservation. The respondents also stated that appointment letters had already been issued to successful candidates.
Petitioner Kanchan Kumari Sinha specifically argued that she secured 70% marks in the written test, exceeding the 30% qualifying threshold, and should have been allowed for the physical test. The respondents countered that the district cut-off for the written test was fixed at 80%, and thus she did not qualify.
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Jharkhand Chowkidar Cadre Rules, 2015. It noted in Clause 3(2) that the cadre is a district-level cadre under the control of the Deputy Commissioner. Clause 5(5) required candidates to be permanent residents of the Beat for which they applied, while Clause 5(7) stated: “चौकीदार के पद पर नियुक्ति जिला स्तर पर होगी एवं उनका पदस्थापन यथासंभव उनके आवासीय बीट क्षेत्र के अन्तर्गत होगा। सामान्यतः उनका स्थानांतरण नहीं किया जायेगा।”
The Court observed that the language of the Rules indicated that while residency was mandatory, posting within the same Beat was directory, not mandatory. It recorded: “The word ‘यथासंभव’... would mean that the posting of ‘Chowkidar’ within his ‘Beat area’ is not mandatory, rather it is directory in nature.” It further stated: “Thus, from the language used in the Rules, 2015, it is clear that a ‘Chowkidar’ who is resident of a concerned ‘Beat’ can be appointed/transferred to another ‘Beat’ for a cogent reason.”
Addressing the petitioners’ contention, the Court stated: “The Rules, 2015 itself speaks that the appointment is to be made ‘district-wise’ and as such the petitioners are wrong in contending that the appointment should have been made ‘Beat Wise’.” The Court also noted that accepting the petitioners’ claim would render application of the reservation roster impossible: “If the contention of the petitioners is accepted, it will not be possible to follow the reservation roster, as the same cannot be applied for a single post.”
The Court cited Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 9 SCC 507 to record that recruitment must conform to statutory rules, and an error in advertisement cannot create a right contrary to rules. It also relied on Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla (2016) 3 SCC 619 to apply purposive interpretation of Clause 9 of the advertisement: “The purpose behind incorporation of Clause 9... 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’...”
On petitioner Kanchan Kumari Sinha’s claim, the Court observed: “Merely on the ground that the said petitioner obtained more than the qualifying marks, she had no right to be called for the physical test since she could not secure the minimum cut-off marks.” It noted that she failed to show any discrimination as no candidate with lower marks had been called for physical test.
The Bench stated: “In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, are also dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II; Ms. Amrita Banerjee, AC to GP-I
Case Title: Pintu Kumar & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:29773-DB
Case Numbers: W.P.(S) Nos.1498, 1529, 4064 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar
