Ritesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 548 Patna

Patna High Court

Ritesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2026

Author: Harish Kumar

Bench: Harish Kumar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4363 of 2025
     ======================================================
1.    Ritesh Kumar Singh S/O- Late Devendra Narayan Singh resident of Village-
      Pahlagarh, PO- Soneli Pelagor, Sonali, PS- Kadwa, District- Katihar.
2.   Md. Sohel S/O- Md. Nuruddin resident of Village- Pelapur, PS-Baliya
     Belown, District- Katihar.
3.   Chitranjan Kumar Singh S/O- Bijendra Prasad Mehta resident of Village-
     Mahinathpur, PS- Kodha, District- Katihar
4.   Vijay Kumar Sah S/O- Kartik Sah resident of Village Basgara, PS-Kodha,
     District- Katihar.
5.   Pappu Kumar Chouhan S/O- Badri Chouhan resident of Village- Govindpur,
     PS-Rautara, District- Katihar.
6.   Md. Anwar Hussain S/O- Abdul Jalil resident of Village- Parbheili, PS-
     Kadwa, District- Katihar.
7.   Vivek Uranw S/O- Panch Lal Uranw resident of Village- Saidpur, Rajuara,
     PS- Rautara, District- Katihar.
8.   Shailendra Kumar Paswan S/O- Surya Narayan Paswan resident of Village-
     Narhiya Chandpur, PS- Falka (Pothiya) District- Katihar.
9.   Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/O- Kantlal Yadav resident of Village- Pothia, PS-
     Falka (Pothiya) District- Katihar.
10. Rohit Kumar S/O- Arvind Yadav resident of Village- Morangi, PS-Mansahi,
    District- Katihar.
11. Sujit Kumar Prasad S/O- Shyam Lal resident of Village- Barmasia, PS-
    Sahayak, District- Katihar.
12. Pradeep Kumar Poddar S/O- Trivenee Poddar resident of Village- Gorphar,
    PS- Dandkhora, Gorphar, Ragheli, District- Katihar
13. Sujit Kumar Singh S/O- Bivekanand Singh resident of Village Pahlagarh,
    PS- Kadwa District- Katihar.
14. Subhash Kumar Mandal S/O- Late Mahavir Mandal resident of Village-
    Manihari, High School Road, Ward No-12, PS-Manihari, District- Katihar.
15. Sandeep Kumar Choudhary S/O- Ramnath Choudhary resident of Village-
    Thutthi Balua Jounia, Gurumela, PS- Barari District- Kaimur (Bhabhua)
16. Jitendra Kumar Sah S/O- Khagendra Sah resident of Village- Pakariya, PS-
    Pranpur, Pakariya Dharhan, District- Katihar
17. Pravin Kumar S/O- Ram Bilash Mandal resident of Village Patti Pachma,
    PS- Kodha, District- Katihar
18. Nitesh Kumar Singh S/O- Gita Prasad Singh resident of Village- Churli Hat,
    PS- Galgalia, District- Kishanganj
19. Pinki Kumar D/O- Sadhu Prasad Gupta resident of Village- Indra Nagar
    Laliyahi, PS- Sahayak District- Katihar

                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
 Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
                                           2/12




  1.    The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar Patna.
  2.    Principal Secretary Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
  3.    Additional Secretary Home Department(Special Branch), Bihar, Patna
  4.    Director General of Police Bihar Patna
  5.    Director General of Home Guard, Bihar Patna
  6.    Chairman Central Selection Board (Constable appointment) Patna
  7.    Secretary Central Selection Board (Constable appointment) Patna
  8.    Commandant Bihar Home Guard Headquarter Patna
  9.    Additional Secretary Central Selection Board (Constable appointment) Patna

                                                 ... ... Respondent/s
       ======================================================
       Appearance :
       For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Shruti Sinha, Adv.
                                        Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Adv.
       For the Respondent/s     :       Mr. AC to GP-23
       For the CSBC             :       Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv.
                                        Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Adv.
                                        Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Adv.
       ======================================================
       CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
               and
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
       ORAL JUDGMENT
       (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

         Date : 19-02-2026

                      The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners

         challenging the validity of Rule 2 of Bihar Home Guard Service

         (2nd Amendment) Rule, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, "Rule,

         2017") wherein it has been laid down that for appointment on

         the post of Constable and Driver Constable of Home Guard, the

         same process will be applied as that of Constable and Driver

         Constable of Bihar Police with regard to physical qualification

         and written examination, so also Rule 4 (i) of Rule, 2017 to the

         extent that it provides for the same procedure to be adopted for
 Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
                                           3/12




         recruitment on the said post as Constable and Driver Constable

         of Bihar Police.

                     2. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that the

         Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) issued

         Advertisement No. 02/2020 for appointment of 551 Constables

         in constable cadre of Bihar Home Guard Force and 50 % of the

         seats were reserved for Home Guards, who were enrolled in

         Bihar and are trained and who have served for atleast five years

         and passed physical fitness and educational qualification,

         besides they have atleast ten years of service length left and

         their education criteria was fixed as Intermediate pass.

                     3. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the

         said Rule, not only there would be a written test, but even if

         they qualify in the written test, they have to undergo physical

         efficiency test, in which marks are to be awarded i.e. running

         test of one mile (1.6 km) in maximum of 6 minutes, shot put test

         in which 16 pound has to be thrown to minimum 16 ft; high

         jump - minimum 4 ft for male candidates and similar conditions

         were also specified for lady candidates.

                     4. The contention of the petitioners is that they were

         Home Guards, enrolled in the State of Bihar and they had

         already performed their duties for more than five years and they
 Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
                                           4/12




         have passed intermediate. Accordingly, admit cards were issued

         and the written examination was conducted on 24.01.2021 and

         then the Physical Efficiency Test was held on 08.02.2022. It is

         stated that the conditions stipulated in passing out the physical

         test is unfair and arbitrary; after passing written test only,

         physical standard test, i.e. measurement of height, weight,

         medical test and character verification should be made.

                     5. It is further stated that in the said written test

         examination, out of 301 Home Guards, only 71 Home Guards

         passed. When this amendment was made, as per Rule, 2017; the

         petitioners submitted their representation, which was rejected

         mechanically. It is the further case of the petitioners that

         adopting the same procedure for the recruitment on the post of

         Constable and Driver Constable of Bihar Police for the Home

         Guards was not at all justified.

                     6. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos.

         6, 7 and 9 (Central Selection Board of Constable), wherein it is

         stated that the writ petition, which has been filed challenging the

         validity of Rule 2 of Rule, 2017 should be dismissed. The

         Director General-cum-Commandant General, Home Guards and

         Fire Services, Bihar, Patna vide its Letter No. 4545 dated

         10.10.2019

sent the vacancies for appointment of Home Guard Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026

Constables to the Board for initiating the recruitment process

and on the basis of such requisition letter, a notification was

issued by the Home (Special) Department and whereupon

Central Selection Board of Constable was entrusted with the

selection and appointment of Home Guard Constables.

7. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that there

were 603 vacancies for appointment on the post of Home Guard

Constables, out of which 302 posts were reserved for Non

Home Guard candidates and 301 posts were reserved for Home

Guards Daily Wages, including sports persons. It is the further

case of the respondents that Clause-5(v) of the Bihar Home

Guard Service Rules, 2005 clearly envisages that other physical

qualifications will be the same, as prescribed in the police

manual with respect to the Constable and the State Government

amended the rules in 2017, wherein it has been indicated that

the same process for physical fitness and written examination

will be followed, which is prescribed for the Bihar Police Sepoy

and Sepoy (Driver).

8. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in the

Notification No. 6620 dated 14.08.2019, the process of selection

for the post of Constable has been incorporated, wherein it has

been clearly envisaged that written examination will not be the Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026

ground of merit list for the post of Constable and it will be only

qualifying for Physical Efficiency Test and candidates securing

less than 30% marks in the written examination will be declared

fail for Physical Efficiency Test and the candidates should be

selected five times of existing vacancies in each category, on the

basis of marks obtained in the written examination. As far as

possible, for the Physical Efficiency Test and the merit list for

selection and appointment to the post of Constable will be

prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in all

the three events under the Physical Efficiency Test i.e. running,

shot put and high jump.

9. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that all

the petitioners were the candidates for the post of Home Guard

Constable and in terms with the advertisement, they duly

participated and were also declared successful in the written

examination. Thereafter, the Board conducted physical

evaluation test of all the successful candidates of the written

examination and final result of successful candidates for the

post of Home Guard Constable was published and

recommendation of successful candidates were also made to the

concerned authorities; thus, the selection process is over.

10. It is the further case of the respondent that there is Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026

no provision for exemption of Home Guard candidates from

Physical Efficiency Test and therefore, it is necessary for all

Home Guard candidates to appear in the Physical Efficiency

Test. It is the case of the respondents that the Board is

recommending body and it acts on the basis of the requisition

sent by the concerned department and abides by the rules and

regulations framed by the State Government. The Board has

published the advertisement, as per the requisition received

from the concerned department and the rules prescribed by the

State Government and it is not in the domain of the Board to

change rules/provisions, mentioned in the requisition.

11. It is further stated that the petitioner earlier filed

CWJC No. 5555/2022, seeking similar relief and that was

dismissed, as not pressed with a liberty given to the petitioners

to approach the respondent authorities for redressal of their

grievances and when the representation was submitted by the

petitioners, the same was disposed off and therefore, the writ

petition is not maintainable.

12. The counter affidavit has also been filed by the

respondents no.5 and 8, wherein it is stated that the writ-

petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for as they have

challenged the provisions of the Act as well as the condition laid Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026

in the advertisement for recruitment against the post advertised

after having participated in the test and remained unsuccessful

having failed in the test in view of the settled principle of law as

decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in

University of Cochin Vs. N. S. Kanjoonjamma & Ors.: 1997

(2) PLJR (SC) 40; Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State

of Bihar & Ors.: 2001(4) PLJR 727 (DB); Madras Institute of

Development Studies & Anr. Vs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan &

Ors.: 2015(4) PLJR (SC) 45 and Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs.

State of Bihar & Ors.: 2020 (1) BLJ 276 (SC).

13. It is further stated that the demand of the

petitioners to put an embargo on taking any PET from the Home

Guard candidates in any future advertisement for appointment

on the post of constable in Bihar Police is totally misconceived.

It is further stated that in view of previous enrollment as Home

Guard, relaxation in age as well as 50% reservation in the

advertised vacancy has been provided for eligible successful

Home Guard candidates. Any compromise with the efficiency of

the disciplined force, would prove to be detrimental for the

force, which cannot be permitted from any angle.

The learned counsel for the State, emphatically

contended that the Rule 2 of 2017 amendment is quite justified. Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026

14. Law is well settled that when the validity of an

Act or Rule is challenged, it can be only maintained on the

grounds like lack of legislative competence, violation of

fundamental rights, inconsistency with constitutional provision

or violation of the basic structure of the Constitution or that it is

quite arbitrary or irrational failing to meet the standard of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Court presumes the laws

to be valid and only strikes them down if unconstitutionality is

clearly established and not just minor drafting flaws.

15. In the case at hand, the purpose for amending the

rules and prescribing of competing the Physical Efficiency Test

is concerned, it has got some purpose. The type of Physical Test

which has been indicated in the advertisement like running test

of one mile i.e. 1.6 km in a maximum of six minutes, throwing

of shot put of 16 pound to a minimum of 16.5 feet, and high

jump a minimum of 4 feet for the male candidates cannot be

said to be unreasonable or arbitrary inasmuch as while

performing the duties as a constable, physical efficiency would

be of prime importance and very much necessary. Physical

fitness is universally recognized as vital for police constables, as

it directly impacts their ability to perform daily duties, ensures

personal safety during high-risk encounters and reduces the Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026

likelihood of on-duty injuries. Therefore, there was every

justification on the part of the authorities to put such condition

precedent before giving appointment in the post of constable

and it has got rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

The contention of the learned counsel that since they are Home

Guards and have been discharging their duties for five years and

they have passed the written test and therefore, liberal attitude

should be adopted for them so far as Physical Efficiency Test is

concerned, is not at all acceptable.

16. Moreover, the petitioners have never challenged

the advertisement at the earliest and after appearing in the

written test as well as physical test and after having been

declared unsuccessful, they have challenged the same.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. S.

Kanjoonjamma (supra) has emphasized that a person having

participated in the selection process cannot be allowed to

challenge its validity subsequently after being unsuccessful, as

he is estopped to challenge the correctness of the procedure. The

learned Division Bench of this Court also in the case of Ram

Naresh Sharma (supra) placing reliance upon the earlier

Division Bench has held that the candidates having appeared

before the selection committee, having full knowledge of the Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026

constitution of the same and taking chance of having favourable

recommendation, cannot challenge the recommendation of the

selection committee, after becoming unsuccessful.

18. Similarly in Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan (supra),

reiterating the aforenoted settled principle while answering the

question as to whether a person, who consciously takes part in

the process of selection can turn around and question the

method of selection is observed that once a candidate without

raising objections to the alleged variations in the contents of the

advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and

participated in the selection process by appearing before the

Committee of experts cannot be allowed to challenge the very

selection process, once he was not selected for appointment.

19. It would also be worth benefiting to take note of

the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dr.

(Major) Meeta Sahai (supra), wherein the Court underscored

the aforenoted principles and observed that the principle of

estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection

process, after having failed in it and this principle has been

reiterated in a plethora of judgments. However, it has further

been crystallized and concluded in paragraph no. 18 as follows:-

"18. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as Patna High Court CWJC No.4363 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026

the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process."

20. In view of the aforenoted facts, circumstances and

the prescription of the advertisement, based upon the Rule, 2017

prescribing mandatory efficiency test, which has rational nexus

to the object sought to be achieved; besides the ratio laid down

in the decisions aforenoted, we are of the view that there is no

merit in the writ petition, accordingly stands dismissed.

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.02.2026
Transmission Date       NA