IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2507 of 2006 1. JAGAT NARAYAN VERMA S/O JAY PRAKASH VERMA OF VILL- BANGALIA, PO- ROHIYAR, PS- MANASI, DISTT- KHAGARIA 2. RAMJI SINGH S/O FAHIM SINGH OF VILL-BANGALIA, PO- ROHIYAR PS- MANSI, DISTT- KHAGARIA 3. RAJIV KUMAR S/O NANDI PD. YADAV OF VILL- MAYURWA PO- KUSAHA VAI. TRIVENIGANJ, PS- TRIVENIGANJ, DISTT- SAPAUL 4. KRISHNA PRASAD S/O BABU LAL YADAV OF VILL-RUSTAMPUR, PO- KENASARIA, PO- MUFFASIL,DISTT- NAWADA 5. AWADHESH PRASAD S/O CHHOTE LAL PRASAD OF VILL- PARMANAND BIGAHA, PO- PASALPUR, PS- NURSARAI, DISTT- NALAND. 6. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA S/O UCHIT LAL GUPTA OF VILL- KAP PO- BALIYA VIA-NAUGACHIA, PS- RUPAULI,DISTT-PURNEA 7. FULESHWAR YADAV S/O SABIT LAL YADAV OF VILL- TAMKULAHA PO- BARETH, PS-BASANALI, DISTT- SAHARSA 8. ROHIT RAM S/O DEBA RAM OF VILL- CHURIHARWA TOLA PO+PS- BAIRIYA DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN--------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROPUGH CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR PATNA 3. THE I.G. OF POLICE, BMP, PATNA 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE BMP, SOUTHERN ZONE MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE COMMANDANT BMP. 7, KATIHAR 6. THE THEN S.P. KATIHAR SRI A.K. JAIN CUM CHAIRMAN CONSTABLE SELECTION BOARD-3, KATIHAR 7. THE COMMANDANT BMP 21/12, SAHARSA-----RESPONDENT ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Parnav Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. A.C. to SC-5. ----------- 3 11.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. All these petitioners claim that they had been validly selected for appointment on the posts of constable under Bihar Military Police. Recruitment was being made through the quota of Home Guard who had validly undergone training. After short listing when they are asked to report for joining they were turned away from the office of the Commandant of B.M.P. Katihar on the ground that the matriculation certificates with regard to age of these petitioners do not match with the training certificates, they had produced. The incongruity on that count therefore cast serious doubt about the training certificates with regard to obtaining so - 2 - called training or to take benefit of the said training itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record the communication dated 7th July, 2005 which is annexure- 5, issued at the headquarter in the name of Director General of Police by erstwhile Assistant Inspector General of Police, Human Rights stating therein that if there is any discrepancy in age with regard to training etc. then the age shown in the matriculation certificate would be treated to be valid piece of evidence but the respondents have not considered this aspect of the matter and the right and claim which had accrued in favour of the petitioners had been taken away in such a casual fashion. Learned counsel for the petitioners further bring to my notice a decision rendered in the case of Laxman Kumar Mandal vrs. The State of Bihar & others reported in 2004(4) PLJR 580 where in similar circumstances the Court directed to consider for appointment even though there was some variance in the age with regard to time of the training so taken at the level of the Home Guard. The decision is there, the circular is there but the final stand of the respondents would be best known if the concerned respondent respond to the claim and the representation filed by the petitioners which is annexed as annexure-6 series which is dated 6.9.2005 and was sent by speed post to all the authorities who have been named in the said representation. This writ application is disposed of with a - 3 - direction upon the D.G. of Home Guard that he will look into the matter and communicate the outcome of the exercise to these petitioners by a speaking order crystallizing the reason if the claim of the petitioners were not worth of consideration. Let the decision be taken within a period of six months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed of with a direction as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)