IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4724 of 2007 Paramahans Kumar Rai, SON OF SRI MATHURA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KARWASIN, P.O. SAHAR, P.S. SAHAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE A.I.G. OF POLICE (PERSONAL) BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE CENTRAL RANGE, PATNA 5. THE S.P. TRAFFIC, PATNA (CUM CHAIRMAN CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE, PATNA. 6. THE S.P. NALANDA CUM MEMBER C.S.C.PATNA :--- RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 2. 14.10.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/98 under the Home Guard Category but was not selected. He approached the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4819 of 2001 which was disposed of under orders dated 22.11.2004 directing the Deputy Inspector General, Central Range, Patna to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order. In compliance of the said order D.I.G., Central Range, Patna passed order bearing Memo No. 153 dated 12.02.2007, Annexure-2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner holding that candidature of the petitioner was not considered for appointment under the Home Guard Category as petitioner acquired training as Home Guard from State of U.P. and under 2 Advertisement No. 1/98 there was clear stipulation that Home Guards acquiring training from other States than Bihar shall not be considered. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that aforesaid stipulation confining the selection of Home Guards from amongst the Home Guards of Bihar is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid submission it is observed that before participating in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/98 which debarred the Home Guards of other States from participating in the selection test petitioner should have challenged such clause as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner having not challenged the clause of advertisement, in my opinion, is not justified in submitting that his candidature be considered in the category of Home Guard. 5. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)