IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6224 of 2010
1. Binod Mandal, Home Guard No. 6703 S/O Late Bhai Lal Mandal
R/O Nawada, P.S.- Naugachhiya, Distt.- Bhagalpur
2. Md. Atabul Ali, Home Guard No. 12163 S/O Md. Murshid R/O
Vill.- Chakrami, P.S.- Narayanpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur
3. Md. Majharul Ali, Home Guard No. 11953 S/O Md. Salim R/O
Village And P.S.- Narayanpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
3. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Old Secretariat,
Patna
4. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna
5. The Inspector General, Karmik, Bihar, Patna
6. The Inspector General Of Police Bhagalpur Zone, Bhagalpur
7. The Inspector General, Home Guard Chhaju Bagh, Bihar, Patna
8. The Deputy Inspector General Home Guard, Chhajju Bagh,
Bihar, Patna
9. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Eastern Zone, Bhagalpur
10. The Deputy Inspector General (Incharge Karmik), Bihar, Patna
-----------
3. 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and the State.
The claim in the writ application is to
appoint the petitioners on the post of Constable after
setting aside the order of the D.I.G. (Personnel) dated
2.4.2008 denying them that relief notwithstanding
the directions of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5723 of
2005.
It is submitted that as a Home Guards they
were entrusted with patrolling duty and engaged
with the unlawful elements leading to active
discharge of duty by the petitioners in apprehending
persons. The D.I.G. recommended in 1993 to
2
recognize their efforts. In C.W.J.C. No. 5723 of 2005
this Court directed the respondents to dispose the
representation. The impugned order does not
recognize the exemplary service rendered by the
petitioners wrongly denying them the right to
appointment.
No counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents. Counsel for the State submits that any
appointment in Police service is regulated by the
Police manual and Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Appointment can only be made by open
advertisement and competitive merit selection. The
petitioner cannot be considered for appointment in
the manner desired as reasoned in the impugned
order dated 2.4.2008.
The impugned order, in the opinion of this
Court, rightly records that the claim for appointment
in the manner made was not sustainable. If the
petitioners were engaged as a Home Guard on patrol
duty when they engaged with the unlawful elements
they did not do the State a favour. They did
themselves a favour by discharge of their duties to
enable them to earn their salary. That will not vest a
claim in them for appointment contrary to Article 14
of the Constitution.
3
If the respondents issue an Advertisement
and the petitioners respond to the same they may be
considered in accordance with law and subject to
any policy decision in the matter the respondents
may consider preference in light of past services if
they deem it fit and proper.
The writ application is disposed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)