IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6224 of 2010 1. Binod Mandal, Home Guard No. 6703 S/O Late Bhai Lal Mandal R/O Nawada, P.S.- Naugachhiya, Distt.- Bhagalpur 2. Md. Atabul Ali, Home Guard No. 12163 S/O Md. Murshid R/O Vill.- Chakrami, P.S.- Narayanpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur 3. Md. Majharul Ali, Home Guard No. 11953 S/O Md. Salim R/O Village And P.S.- Narayanpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Old Secretariat, Patna 4. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna 5. The Inspector General, Karmik, Bihar, Patna 6. The Inspector General Of Police Bhagalpur Zone, Bhagalpur 7. The Inspector General, Home Guard Chhaju Bagh, Bihar, Patna 8. The Deputy Inspector General Home Guard, Chhajju Bagh, Bihar, Patna 9. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Eastern Zone, Bhagalpur 10. The Deputy Inspector General (Incharge Karmik), Bihar, Patna ----------- 3. 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The claim in the writ application is to appoint the petitioners on the post of Constable after setting aside the order of the D.I.G. (Personnel) dated 2.4.2008 denying them that relief notwithstanding the directions of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5723 of 2005. It is submitted that as a Home Guards they were entrusted with patrolling duty and engaged with the unlawful elements leading to active discharge of duty by the petitioners in apprehending persons. The D.I.G. recommended in 1993 to 2 recognize their efforts. In C.W.J.C. No. 5723 of 2005 this Court directed the respondents to dispose the representation. The impugned order does not recognize the exemplary service rendered by the petitioners wrongly denying them the right to appointment. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Counsel for the State submits that any appointment in Police service is regulated by the Police manual and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Appointment can only be made by open advertisement and competitive merit selection. The petitioner cannot be considered for appointment in the manner desired as reasoned in the impugned order dated 2.4.2008. The impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, rightly records that the claim for appointment in the manner made was not sustainable. If the petitioners were engaged as a Home Guard on patrol duty when they engaged with the unlawful elements they did not do the State a favour. They did themselves a favour by discharge of their duties to enable them to earn their salary. That will not vest a claim in them for appointment contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. 3 If the respondents issue an Advertisement and the petitioners respond to the same they may be considered in accordance with law and subject to any policy decision in the matter the respondents may consider preference in light of past services if they deem it fit and proper. The writ application is disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)