IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4724 of 2007
Paramahans Kumar Rai, SON OF SRI MATHURA RAI, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE- KARWASIN, P.O. SAHAR, P.S. SAHAR, DISTRICT-
BHOJPUR :---PETITIONER.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE A.I.G. OF POLICE (PERSONAL) BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE CENTRAL RANGE, PATNA
5. THE S.P. TRAFFIC, PATNA (CUM CHAIRMAN CONSTABLE
SELECTION COMMITTEE, PATNA.
6. THE S.P. NALANDA CUM MEMBER C.S.C.PATNA :---
RESPONDENTS.
----------------------------------
2. 14.10.2011. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner was an applicant for
appointment on the post of Constable
pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/98 under the
Home Guard Category but was not selected.
He approached the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
4819 of 2001 which was disposed of under
orders dated 22.11.2004 directing the Deputy
Inspector General, Central Range, Patna to
consider the grievance of the petitioner and to
pass a reasoned order. In compliance of the
said order D.I.G., Central Range, Patna passed
order bearing Memo No. 153 dated
12.02.2007, Annexure-2 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner holding that
candidature of the petitioner was not
considered for appointment under the Home
Guard Category as petitioner acquired training
as Home Guard from State of U.P. and under
2
Advertisement No. 1/98 there was clear
stipulation that Home Guards acquiring
training from other States than Bihar shall not
be considered.
3. Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that aforesaid stipulation confining
the selection of Home Guards from amongst
the Home Guards of Bihar is discriminatory
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
4. Without going into the correctness
or otherwise of the aforesaid submission it is
observed that before participating in the
selection process pursuant to Advertisement
No. 1/98 which debarred the Home Guards of
other States from participating in the selection
test petitioner should have challenged such
clause as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Petitioner having not
challenged the clause of advertisement, in my
opinion, is not justified in submitting that his
candidature be considered in the category of
Home Guard.
5. There is no merit in the writ
petition, which is, dismissed.
P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)