Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court addressed a long-standing dispute involving the recruitment of Home Guards in Bihar. Multiple petitioners from Gopalganj had approached the Court, challenging the selection process under Advertisement No. 02/2011. They argued that although the advertisement specified that recruitment would be conducted on a district-wise basis, the authorities instead followed a block-wise selection process.
This difference was crucial. Under a district-wide process, all applicants in the district compete for available vacancies regardless of their block, whereas a block-based process limits applicants to vacancies in their own block, even if vacancies remain unfilled in other blocks of the same district. The petitioners claimed that this approach was not only unfair but also in violation of the Bihar Home Guard Act, 1947 and the Bihar Home Guard Rules, 1953.
The Court noted that this was not a new issue. A similar case had been decided earlier in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Manjay Kumar & Ors., where both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had ruled that recruitment must strictly follow the rules and be district-based, as per the advertisement. That earlier case dealt with vacancies in Muzaffarpur, but the legal question was the same as in the present matter involving Gopalganj.
The High Court reviewed the relevant law, especially Rule 5(4) of the Bihar Home Guard Rules, 1953. It clearly states that applications must be made to the District Magistrate of the district where the applicant resides, and that selection should be carried out through a District Committee. Nowhere do the rules authorize block-wise segregation of vacancies.
The Court found that the respondent authorities, for their own convenience, had deviated from the advertised method and from statutory requirements. This was considered a breach of the “rules of the game” — a legal principle meaning that once an authority sets certain rules in a recruitment advertisement, both sides are bound to follow them.
Importantly, the Court observed that continuing with block-wise appointments could result in a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equality in public employment. Limiting a candidate to vacancies in their own block could unfairly exclude more meritorious candidates from other blocks within the same district.
In conclusion, the Patna High Court directed the authorities to:
- Consider the cases of all petitioners from Gopalganj.
- Adjust the selection process to follow the district-wise method as per the original advertisement and the statutory rules.
- Take corrective action and accommodate eligible petitioners within 90 days from the receipt of the Court’s order.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that recruitment authorities must adhere strictly to the method and eligibility criteria set out in the recruitment advertisement, especially when these are based on statutory rules. It also clarifies that administrative convenience cannot override legal provisions.
For the public, it underscores that recruitment processes in Bihar — especially for positions like Home Guards — must ensure equal opportunity for all eligible candidates across a district. For the government, it is a reminder that deviation from statutory rules can lead to judicial intervention and potential disruption of completed recruitment exercises.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Issue: Whether Home Guard recruitment under Advertisement No. 02/2011 should be conducted district-wise or block-wise.
Decision: Recruitment must be district-wise, as per the advertisement and the Bihar Home Guard Rules, 1953. - Issue: Whether block-wise recruitment violates equality principles under the Constitution.
Decision: Yes. Restricting candidates to block-level vacancies can amount to discrimination under Articles 14 and 16. - Issue: Whether authorities can rely on administrative instructions from 2007 to justify block-wise segregation.
Decision: No. Government instructions cannot override the statutory provisions of the 1947 Act and 1953 Rules.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Manjay Kumar & Ors. (LPA No. 645 of 2021)
- B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 507
- Ashok Ram Parhad vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 265
- Nair Service Society vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 545
Case Title
Multiple Petitioners vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 159 of 2018
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Mr. Krishna Thakur, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Mr. Gyanandra Kumar Diwakar, Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Shashwat Srivastav, Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh
- For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar (AC to GP-4), Mr. P.K. Verma (AAG-3), Mr. Suman Kumar Jha (AC to AAG-3), Mr. Md. Nadeem Seraj (GP-5), Ms. Shalini Mishra (AC to GP-5), Mr. Manish Kumar (GP-4), Mr. Md. N.H. Khan (SC-1), Mr. Md. Isha (AC to SC-1), Mr. Mankeshwar Tiwari (AC to AAG-3)
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTU5IzIwMTgjMSNO—ak1–0val7I–am1–9IQ=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.