Public Jobs Aren’t Hereditary Titles: Supreme Court Strikes Down Bihar Rule Allowing Chaukidars to Nominate Their Children for Government Jobs

“Even as we near 80 years of independence, some states still behave as if public employment is a matter of descent. That is not our constitutional ethos.” - In a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional principles, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Patna High Court’s decision striking down the 2014 amendment to the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre Rules, which allowed a serving Chaukidar to nominate his dependent kin for appointment one month before retirement. The apex court ruled that such a clause “smacks of feudalism” and violates Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity in public employment.

The judgment came in the case of Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar & Ors., wherein a registered trade union representing chaukidars challenged the High Court’s decision even though it was not a party to the earlier proceedings.

Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, penned a detailed opinion highlighting how “hereditary public service” is an affront to the ideals of democracy and fairness.

“Still we find some States following archaic models of employment, as if employment in public service is a hereditary right… Employment should not flow as if it were heritable.”

“Equality of Opportunity Is a Non-Negotiable Pillar of Public Employment — No Preferential Route Through Family Trees”
At the heart of the dispute was Proviso (a) to Rule 5(7) of the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014, which permitted a serving Chaukidar to nominate a family member for appointment, provided it was done a month before retirement. This, the High Court had ruled, breached Articles 14 and 16, and the Supreme Court emphatically agreed.

“Public employment has to be preceded by advertisement, open selection, and fair competition… not by succession like ancestral property.”

The Court cited a long line of precedents — including Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India, and Surender Paswan v. State of Bihar — all of which disapproved of appointments based on “descent.”

“Apart from limited exceptions like compassionate appointment or rehabilitation for land acquisition, no law can bypass open selection without violating Article 16.”

“This Is Not Just Illegal — It’s an Affront to the Constitution and the Waiting Millions”
The Court slammed the State of Bihar for its continued defence of the rule, despite repeated judicial warnings.

“To assume that none from the public would be interested in working as chaukidars in Naxal areas is a baseless presumption — there’s no data to prove it.”

“Jobs are scarce, and the queue is long — you cannot let some sneak through the back door on the strength of blood ties.”

The Court also found it “surprising” that the State did not even challenge the High Court’s judgment, and only the beneficiary union of chaukidars brought the SLP. This, the Court said, showed that the government wasn’t truly aggrieved — a critical factor in dismissing the plea.

“Courts Have the Power to Strike Down Unconstitutional Rules — Even Without a Formal Challenge”
A striking feature of the case was that the rule in question was not directly challenged in the writ petition filed by the individual respondent whose father had failed to nominate him before retiring. Still, the High Court struck it down.

The Supreme Court held this was entirely justified: “A writ court, when its conscience is pricked in a rare and exceptional case by the patent unconstitutionality of a subordinate legislation, may suo motu declare it void — provided the State is heard.”

“Justice is not a matter of formality — if a rule openly violates binding precedent and the Constitution, the Court must act.”

The Court clarified that while such power must be used sparingly, it was essential in this case given the “egregious violation of a Fundamental Right.”

“Public Employment Is Not a Family Privilege – It’s a Constitutional Right Based on Merit”

In its concluding observations, the Court underscored the importance of removing legacy-based recruitment from public service altogether.

“A dependent kin of a retiring employee can only be appointed if he independently qualifies on merit — not simply because of bloodline.”

Since the petitioning union's members had no individual right infringed, and the High Court had correctly applied the law, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and upheld the striking down of the 2014 rule.

“The offending proviso is in the teeth of binding precedent, and rightly struck down. The petitioning union’s challenge crumbles.”

Date of Decision: April 2, 2025