Ranvir Kumar Thakur Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

constitution of india-articles 14 and 226-claim for approval of appointment as dafadar/chaukidar and payment of salary-officer-incharge of police station is not competent authority to appoint petitioner on the post of chaukidar/dafadar-petitioner, who was not appointed by competent authority under due process of law or by regular recruitment on sanctioned post, cannot claim any legal right. - - 3. there is no supporting appointment order or any supporting provision pointed out in course of submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner whereas it is clearly testified in the counter affidavit that officer incharge of the police station is not competent authority to appoint the petitioner on the post of chaukidar/dafadar. 4. upon consideration of the factual circumstances and the pleadings, as well as, factual profile coupled with latest law propounded by the constitution bench of the hon'ble apex court on in (2006) 4 scc 1 [secretaray, state of karnataka and ors. ], which clearly applies to the facts of the present case, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner, who was not appointed by the competent authority under due process of law or by regular recruitment on sanctioned post, cannot claim any legal right.j.n. bhatt, c.j.1. by this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner has sought for a direction against the respondent authorities to approve the appointment of the petitioner as dafadar/chaukidar in bibhutipur police station in the district of samastipur, as the petitioner is the grandson of the ex dafadar shri surya narain thakur and to pay salary or remuneration to him from the date of retirement of his grandfather in 1997 as he has done the duty.2. learned counsel for the parties are heard. the factual profile is examined. the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 and also on behalf of respondent no. 3 superintendent of police, samastipur are also considered.3. there is no supporting appointment order or any supporting provision pointed out in course of submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner whereas it is clearly testified in the counter affidavit that officer incharge of the police station is not competent authority to appoint the petitioner on the post of chaukidar/dafadar. therefore, the challan issued by him to act as avazi dafadar is without jurisdiction and non est.4. upon consideration of the factual circumstances and the pleadings, as well as, factual profile coupled with latest law propounded by the constitution bench of the hon'ble apex court on in (2006) 4 scc 1 [secretaray, state of karnataka and ors. v. uma devi (3) and ors.], which clearly applies to the facts of the present case, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner, who was not appointed by the competent authority under due process of law or by regular recruitment on sanctioned post, cannot claim any legal right. therefore, this petition is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed. accordingly, it shall stand dismissed, but, without costs. rule is discharged.