IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4441 of 2010 1. SHIVKANT SINGH S/O UMESH MANDAL R/O VILLAGE - BASANTPUR , P.S - LODIPUR , DISTRICT - BHAGALPUR 2. ALOK KUMAR S/O SHRAWAN PRASAD YADAV R/O VILLAGE - HALKARACHAK , P.S + P.O - BATH , DISTRICT - BHAGALPUR 3. SANJAY KUMAR S/O PRAHLAD PRASAD YADAV R/O VILLAGE - PUNNAKH , P.O + P.S - GORADIH , DISTRICT - BHAGALPUR 4. NAND KISHORE YADAV S/O BRAHMDEO YADAV R/O VILLAGE - BALUATOLA , P.O - MIRZAPUR , P.S - MADHUSUDANPUR , DISTRICT - BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HOME GUARD) BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN HOME GUARD SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT - BHAGALPUR 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CUM BHAGALPUR CUM MEMBER HOME GUARD SELECTION COMMITTEE, DISTRICT - BHAGALPUR 6. THE DISTRICT COMMANDANT (HOME GUARD) BHAGALPUR CUM & MEMBER SECRETARY HOME GUARD SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR 7. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER CUM MEMBER HOME GUARD SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR 8. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HOME GUARD DISTRICT -BHAGALPUR ----------- 2. 26.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners were applicants in the reserved Backward category for the post of Home Guard in the rural areas under Advertisement No. 1 of 2006 dated 7.3.2006. They are aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2010 refusing to appoint them against 8 vacancies existing for the female category and directing carryover of the 8 reserved vacancies 2 due to absence of any female candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the advertisement, note 2, only males were eligible for appointment in the rural areas while females were also eligible for the urban areas. The counter affidavit of the respondents discloses that there were 34 vacancies in the backward class in the rural areas for males and 8 vacancies in that class for females. Since females were not eligible for appointment in the rural areas, a total number of vacancies in the backward class becomes 42. The petitioners are acknowledged to be at Serial No. 35 to 42 of the merit list. They therefore deserves to be appointed and denial of appointment by showing them as candidates eligible against the female category and then rejecting their candidature on an alleged plea of carryover of reserved female vacancy is therefore contrary to law. Counsel for the State submits that petitioners have themselves stated in the writ application that their selection was made against the 8 reserved vacancies meant for females. The proposal for appointing by converting these 8 vacancies into that of the male category has been rejected. The petitioners have no vested right to 3 appointment only because they may have been selected and kept in the waiting list. It is not in dispute that the petitioners belonged to the backward caste, were applicants for the post of Home Guard in the rural areas and their position in the merit list stands at serial No. 35 to 42. The deponent to the counter affidavit perhaps did not consider it prudent enough to go through the writ application and the annexures contained to the same before affirming the affidavit. Let alone the recitals contained in the advertisement, Note- 2, that only male candidates were eligible for consideration in the rural category, the petitioners have specifically asserted this fact and reiterated in Paragraph-5 of the writ application. Dealing with the same, the deponent in Paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit states that it requires no comment. The casualness with which the deponent has filed the counter affidavit is more than apparent and thoroughly disappoints the Court. The casualness with which proceedings before this Court are being treated by the respondents leading to unwarranted litigation, disturbs this Court. If females were prohibited from consideration in the rural category, according to the 4 vacancy position disclosed in the counter affidavit of the Home Guard in the rural areas for the backward class, it undisputedly stands at 42. If the petitioners stand at Serial 35 to 42 clearly vacancies existed and they cannot be denied appointment on an erroneous reasoning that they had been placed in the merit list against reserved female vacancies when the advertisement itself prohibited so. The respondents appeared to be acting directly in teeth of the advertisement. Their actions are contrary to law and unsustainable. Let the claims of the petitioners for appointment as Home Guard in the rural category under Advertisement No. 1 of 2006 be now considered in accordance with law and their merit position in the panel read in conjunction with the vacancy position in light of the present discussion within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)