IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5289 of 2010 1. RANJEET KUMAR S/O SRI NIWASH SINGH R/O VILL.- NAWKA TOLA, P.S.- SISWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN 2. ABHAY KUMAR PANDEY S/O LATE SURENDRA PANDEY R/O VILL.- NEPURA, P.S.- DAROULI, DISTT.- SIWAN 3. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI SAWALIYA SINGH R/O VILL.- SAWAN BIGRAH, P.S.- DAROUNDA, DISTT.- SIWAN 4. MANOJ YADAV S/O SIWPUJAN YADAV R/O VILL.- GOHPUR, P.S.- G.B. NAGUTARWNA, DISTT.- SIWAN 5. RUPESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- PASNOULI, P.S.- MAHARAJGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN 6. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH S/O VINOD SINGH R/O VILL.- TAKKIPUR, P.S.- MAHARAJGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN 7. RAVI SHANKAR TIWARY S/O SAMBHU NATH TIWARY R/O VILL.- KORHAWLIAN, P.S.- GAUTHANI, DISTT.- SIWAN 8. KAILASH YADAV S/O ............................... R/O VILL.- BIHAR, P.S.- GUTHANI, DISTT.- SIWAN 9. JAI SHANKAR PRASAD CHOUSARIA S/O JUGAL BARNI R/O VILL.- GARAR, P.S.- ANDAR, DISTT.- SIWAN 10. BIRESH KUMAR S/O LATE HARIHAR PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL.- GAROUR, P.S.- ANDAR, DISTT.- SIWAN 11. SANJAY KUMAR S/O JAG NARAYAN CHOWRASIA R/O VILL.- BAIKUNTPUR, P.S.- ANDAR, DISTT.- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL BIHAR, HOME GUARD POLICE, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTT.- SIWAN 5. THE DISTRICT COMMANDANT HOME GUARD, DISTT.- SIWAN 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER SIWAN ----------- 2. 18.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The claim of the petitioners is to be considered for appointment as a Home Guard in the District of Siwan in their respective categories under Advertisement No. 1 of 2006. They further seek the relief that such vacancies may not be clubbed up with Advertisement No. 1 of 2009. 2 It is the specific case of the petitioners that after the selection process, a select list of 172 persons was drawn up. 148 persons were appointed and 24 were kept in the wait list to be appointed against non- joining vacancies. It is the case of the petitioners that they fall in the category of this 24 in their respective categories. The two examples given by them in the writ petition has been answered in the counter affidavit by stating that they belonged to the Scheduled Caste and the petitioners belonged to the General category and therefore they could not be considered. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that all of them do not belong to the General category. The select panel is dated 8.5.2008. According to law any select list prepared including the wait list shall have its validity for a period of one year only. But if the petitioners have raised their claims from the wait list to be considered against non-joining vacancies during the life of the panel itself i.e., on 15.7.2008 as urged by them, not denied in the counter affidavit, they cannot be non-suited. The counter affidavit is silent with regard to any facts and figures of the non-joining vacancies from this 172 except for answering with regard to the two persons named in Paragraph-9 of the writ 3 application. Let the petitioners file a representation disclosing their respective categories. Since the petitioners did move under the Right to Information Act but failed to obtain relevant information with regard to non-joining vacancies of these 148 posts, the respondents shall be obliged to consider the case of the petitioners in their respective categories on any non-joining posts of these 148 vacancies. If the respondents be of the opinion otherwise that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief due to non-availability of any such vacancies from the select list of 148 posts, they shall be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Let such appropriate orders be passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of such representation by the petitioners. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)