Supreme Court Ruling on Hereditary Appointments: A 2025 Analysis

Supreme Court Strikes Down Hereditary Appointments in Public Service: Bihar Case Analysis

On April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment emphasizing equality and equal opportunity in public employment by ruling against hereditary appointments. This ruling emerged from the case of BIHAR RAJYA DAFADAR CHAUKIDAR PANCHAYAT (MAGADH DIVISION) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 2025, focusing on a provision in the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014. This provision permitted a retiring chowkidar to nominate a dependent relative for their position.

A bench consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan upheld the Patna High Court's ruling, declaring the provision unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 16 (equal opportunity in public employment) of the Indian Constitution.

Key Highlights of the Supreme Court's Judgment

• Rejection of Hereditary Appointments: The Court firmly stated that public service appointments cannot be based on heredity. Employment in this sector must not be perceived as an inheritable right.
• Violation of Articles 14 and 16: The provision allowing hereditary appointments was found to contradict constitutional guarantees, creating an unfair advantage for relatives of retiring employees while excluding other qualified candidates.
• Affirmation of Patna High Court's Decision: The Supreme Court endorsed the Patna High Court's well-reasoned decision to invalidate the problematic rule.
• Reliance on Precedent: Justice Manmohan's judgment referenced prior Supreme Court rulings that similarly condemned hereditary entries into public service, such as the cases of Manjit vs. Union of India (2021), Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railways v. A. Nishanth George (2022), and others.

Emphasis on Fair and Transparent Selection Process

The Supreme Court highlighted essential steps for a valid public employment process, which must encompass:

• Public advertisement or requisition from employment exchanges.
• Screening of eligible candidates.
• A fair and transparent selection process managed by an impartial body.
• Merit-based selection and preparation of a merit list, adhering to reservation rules.
• Creation of a waitlist if necessary.
• Appointments strictly based on merit and waitlist.

Limited Exceptions

The Court recognized that limited exceptions to the general rule exist, such as compassionate appointments, dying-in-harness schemes, and protective discrimination schemes. However, hereditary succession to a post does not qualify as an exception.

In summary, the Supreme Court's ruling underscores that merit and equal opportunity are fundamental in public employment. Hereditary appointments undermine these principles, establishing a system where lineage supersedes ability and qualification.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What was the case about?
Answer: The case involved a challenge to a Bihar rule allowing a retiring chowkidar to nominate a family member for their position. The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court's decision, deeming the rule unconstitutional.

Q2. What did the Supreme Court rule?
Answer: The Court ruled that hereditary appointments to public posts are unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

Q3. Why did the Supreme Court find hereditary appointments unconstitutional?
Answer: The Court argued that such appointments deny equal opportunity to eligible candidates, promoting a "backdoor entry" into public service instead of a competitive selection process.

Q4. What are Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution?
Answer: Article 14 ensures equality before the law, while Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity in public employment, prohibiting discrimination in hiring processes.

Q5. What is the significance of this judgment?
Answer: This ruling reinforces the importance of merit-based public employment in India, emphasizing that positions should be open to all qualified individuals, not treated as family inheritances.

UPSC Practice MCQs

Question 1: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding hereditary appointments in the Bihar case?
A) They are constitutional
B) They are unconstitutional
C) They are subject to exceptions
D) They require public advertisement
Correct Answer: B

Question 2: Which articles of the Indian Constitution were cited in the Supreme Court's ruling?
A) Articles 12 and 15
B) Articles 14 and 16
C) Articles 10 and 11
D) Articles 18 and 19
Correct Answer: B

Question 3: What is a key requirement for public employment selection mentioned in the judgment?
A) Hereditary succession
B) Merit-based selection
C) Nomination by relatives
D) Automatic appointments
Correct Answer: B

Question 4: What does the "reasonable classification" doctrine refer to?
A) Treating all citizens equally
B) Making laws treating different groups differently
C) Allowing hereditary succession
D) Exempting public servants from scrutiny
Correct Answer: B