IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10423 of 2001 1. Lakshman Kumar son of Kishori Sharma, resident of village Lakhanpura, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, district Patna 2. Hareram Kumar son of Biranchi Singh, resident of village Lakhanpura, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, district Patna 3. Rajiv Ranjan Singh son of Rajendra Singh resident of village Chakdaulat, P.O. Lakhanpura, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, district Patna 4. Virendra Kumar son of Madhusudan Sharma resident of village Mogalpura, P.O.Kakahanpura, P.S.Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna 5. Shyam Anjesh Kumar son of Villas Singh resident of village Mogalpura, P.O. Lakhanpura, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna 6. Dhananjay Kumar son of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh, resident of villae Lakhanpura P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, district Patna 7. Ranjay Kumar, son of Ram Pravesh Sharma, resident of village Sabdalpur, P.S. Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad 8. Rakesh Kumar son of Ramji Sharma, resident of village Mirzapur P.O. Shakurabad, District Jehanabad VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 5. Superintendent of Police, Nalanda 6. Lalan Kumar Jha son of Late Kameleshwari Jha, resident of village Mansi (Khatiya), P.S. Mansi, District Khagaria 7. Kamlesh Singh son of Gorakh Singh, resident of village Sawar, P.S. Karmchar, District Kaimur (Bhabhua) 8. Ram Narayan Singh son of Raghpati Singh, resident of village Bakhorapur, P.S. Badahara, District Bhojpur 9. Ramudit sharma son of Gangaram, resident of village Sarthua, P.S. Kashichak, District Nawadah 10.Agrasan Singh son of Badri Singh, resident of village Kayampur, P.S. Khusrupur, District Patna 11.Nityanand Kumar son of Thakur Prasad Singh resident if village Sarthua, P.S. Harnaut, district Nalanda 12.Umesh Kumar Singh, son of Vishwanath Singh, resident of village Pakari P.S. Bihia, district Bhojpur 13.Subodh Kumar son of Kameshwar Singh, resident of village Chaurasi, P.S. Karaipasurai, District Nalanda 14.Birendra Kumar Sharma son of Umesh Prasad resident of village Kapashyama, P.S. Hilsa, district Nalanda 15. Vijay Kumar Singh son of Sri Bhagwan Singh, resident of 2 village Pakari, P.S. Bihia, District Bhojpur 16. Gopal Kumar Singh son of Bir Abhimanyu Singh resident of village Udaybigha, P.S. Silao, District Nalanda 17. Ram Naresh Singh, son of Sri Ram Sevak Singh, resident of village Chamarpur, P.S. Lahpur, District Bhojpur WITH CWJC No.10058 of 2001 1.Sidhanath Sharma son of Kapildeo Sharma 2.Dhananjay Kumar son of Sri Tarkeshwar Singh Both are resident of village & P.O.Nadawan, P.S.Shanarua, District Patna VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 5. Gopal Kumar Singh son of Bir Abhimanyu Singh resident of village Udaybigha, P.S. Silao, District Nalanda 6. Ram Naresh Singh, son of Sri Ram Sevak Singh, resident of village Chamarpur, P.S. Lahpur, District Bhojpur 7. Vijay Kumar Singh son of Sri Bhagwan Singh, resident of village Pakari, P.S. Bihia, District Bhojpur 8. Birendra Kumar Sharma son of Umesh Prasad resident of village Kapashyama, P.S. Hilsa, district Nalanda 9. Ram Narayan Singh son of Raghpati Singh, resident of village Bakhorapur, P.S. Badahara, District Bhojpur 10. Ramudit sharma son of Gangaram, resident of village Sarthua, P.S. Kashichak, District Nawadah 11. Umesh Kumar Singh, son of Vishwanath Singh, resident of village Pakari P.S. Bihia, district Bhojpur 12. Subodh Kumar son of Kameshwar Singh, resident of village Chaurasi, P.S. Karaipasurai, District Nalanda 13. Lalan Kumar Jha son of Late Kameleshwari Jha, resident of village Mansi (Khatiya), P.S. Mansi, District Khagaria 14. Kamlesh Singh son of Gorakh Singh, resident of village Sawar, P.S. Karmchar, District Kaimur (Bhabhua) -------- For the Petitioners : M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr.Advocate Partha Sarthy, Advocate For the State : Mr P.K.Singh, SC 21 For the Private : M/s Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Sr. Respondents Advocate and Shanti Pratap,Advocate Respondents -------- 3 18 21.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents in both these writ petitions. Initially, the writ petitions were filed on a simple ground of discrimination alleging that whereas petitioners have better height than some of the private respondents,they have been discriminated in the matter of appointment to the post of constable because after being successful in other tests the appointments were to be made on the basis of height consideration only. On behalf of the State and private respondents, a ategorical stand was taken that the private respondents belong to a different category as they were already engaged as Home guards and, therefore, for that category the cut off height was less leading to selection and appointment of private respondents as compared to the general candidates like the petitioners. There was a question raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding genuineness of the claim that the private respondents belong to the home guards or not. The original records were called for and on that basis the respondents could support their stand in the counter affidavit. Once that issue of fact is settled, the only issue arises whether the State 4 Government has taken a policy decision to reserve 50 per cent of the posts for persons engaged as home guards or not. That issue is answered by Annexure-A to second supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents in CWJC No.10058 of 2001. The said Annexure-A dated 22.1.1990 shows that 50 per cent of the vacancies in the post of constable in Bihar Police were decided to be filled up by home guards. The issue of discrimination in respect of such a policy decision is non-existent one because persons who were home guards constitute a different class and hence, by a policy decision the State could always decide to allocate a percentage of posts for persons working as home guards. Such preference to home guards, as appears from Annexure-A does not violate principles of reservation because it is mentioned that even for the 50 per cent posts reserved for the home guards, the required reservation for various groups and castes such as scheduled castes, scheduled tribes etc. will be maintained. In the facts of the case, this Court finds no merit in the writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk