IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11047 of 2007 BIMAL KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Adv. For the State: Mr. P. K. Verma, AAG-5 ***** 02. 08.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel, appearing on behalf of the State. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the then S.P., Nawada, Respondent No. 5. Petitioner, in response to Advertisement No. 01/2004, applied for the post of Constable in Bihar Police against vacancies in Magadh Range, Gaya. He appeared in different tests and was declared successful by the Selection Committee. His name was published on the Notice Board for participating in the Physical Test. Petitioner’s grievance is that despite being successful in all Tests, he was not appointed by the Selection Committee. When he made enquiry from the Chairman of the Selection Committee, he was informed that his training certificate of Home Guard was not considered for calculating points, received by him for selection. The reason for not recognizing his Home Guard Certificate was that at the time, when he was undergone Home Guard training, he was of lesser 2 age than the age required for undergoing training, as provided under Rule 4 of the Bihar Home Guard Rules. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the age, as given in the Matriculation Certificate, should be considered as correct age for the purposes of selection, as has been decided in the case of Brajendra Kumar & Anr Vrs. State of Bihar in C.W.J.C. No. 10997 of 1997, decided by the Order, dated 27.07.1999. The decision, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, will not come for his rescue, for the reason that issue in that Writ Application was different from the issue in the case of the petitioner. In case of Brajendra Kumar & Anr., petitioners’ age, as mentioned in Home Guard Certificate, was being considered to test their eligibility for appointment, since as per Home Guard Certificate, they were underage they were not considered eligible for appointment. In the Writ Application, it was held that whatever age be mentioned in the Home Guard Certificate, the age as mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate will be the age to be considered for eligibility criteria for appointment. Similar direction 3 has also been issued by the Director General of Police in his official orders. The case of the petitioner is on a different footing, for the reason that petitioner’s age, as mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate, is 01.05.1972. He joined Home Guard Training on 06.11.1989. Considering his age, as mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate, he was 17 years, 6 months and some days, i.e., less than 19 years of age, required for undergoing Home Guard Training, provided under Rule 4 of Bihar Home Guard Rules. The petitioner would have been eligible for some extra points in case his Home Guard Certificate would have been considered as such on the basis of this additional points, his name would have been there in the selection list. Since his Home Guard Training Certificate on account of his ineligibility, as per Rule 4 of Bihar Home Guard Rules, was not considered, he fetched lesser points and that was the reason that his name was not put in the selection list. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner can not claim parity with the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10997 of 1997 (Brajendra Kumar and Anr. Vrs. State of Bihar). 4 In the Counter Affidavit also, in para 9 this point has been elaborated. In para 10, it has been stated that the petitioner was not entitled to avail any relaxation given to the enrolled Home Guard in the matter of appointment of Police Constable, a general category candidate. Relaxation allowed on the basis of Home Guard Certificate was not allowed in the case of the petitioner, as he secured only 8 numbers in the examination, which was not sufficient to place him in the merit list of Non Home Guard (General) Candidate. I do not find that any irregularity has been committed by the Respondents by finding that petitioner was not eligible for being appointed for Constable. For all these reasons, this Writ Application is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)