Patna High Court
Vikram Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Non‑disclosure of the pending criminal case under Rule 12 of the advertisement creates a legal bar to appointment, justifying the cancellation of the petitioner’s selection.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikram Kumar Yadav, was selected for a Home Guard post but his selection was cancelled after a verification revealed a pending criminal case. He argued that the cancellation was discriminatory, citing Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and relied on a recent judgment that mere pendency of a criminal case should not bar appointment. The respondents contended that Rule 12 of the recruitment advertisement required candidates to disclose any pending criminal cases, which the petitioner failed to do. The Court examined Rule 12 and held that the mandatory disclosure was a condition precedent for consideration, and the petitioner’s non‑disclosure constituted a breach of that rule. While acknowledging the earlier judgment, the Court distinguished the present case on the basis of non‑compliance with the disclosure requirement and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The pendency of a criminal case, without conviction, can bar appointment to a Home Guard post under the recruitment rules.
- Whether failure to disclose a pending criminal case as required by Rule 12 of the advertisement justifies cancellation of selection.
- Whether the cancellation violates constitutional guarantees of equality, non‑discrimination and freedom to practice any profession (Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g)).
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 332, 334, 353, 427
Subjects
- Home Guard recruitment
- Pending criminal case
- Disclosure requirement
- Rule 12
- Discrimination
- Constitutional law
- Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g)
- Appointment cancellation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13356 of 2025
======================================================
Vikram Kumar Yadav S/o Tetar Prasad Yadav, Resident of village Babutola
P.S.- Banka, Distt.-Banka, Bihar-813102.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home (Special)
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General cum Commandant General, Bihar Home Guard and
Fire Services, Bihar.
4. The District Commandant, Home Guards, Distt.- Banka, Bihar.
5. The District Magistrate, Distt.- Banka, Bihar.
6. The District Welfare Officer, Distt.- Banka, Bihar.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Distt.- Banka, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prashant Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Anal Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sitaram Yadav, GP-16
Yatindra Narayan, AC to GP-16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-06-2026
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned
Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application have
prayed for following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)
thereby quashing the decision of the District
Selection Committee as contained in Memo no.
1047 dated 01.08.2025 with respect to the
petitioner at Serial no.1 as contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.13356 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
2/5
Prapatra-"Ga" whereby the petitioner's selection
for the post of Home Guards has been cancelled in
a discriminatory and arbitrary manner on the
ground of bearing serious criminal allegations in
Banka P.S. Case no.-527/18 dated 06.08.2018 u/s
147, 148, 149, 353, 427, 332, 334 of IPC,
Chargesheet no.-356/2020 dated 29.08.2020 in
which petitioner is on bail.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)
thereby directing the respondents to appoint the
petitioner on the post of Home Guards advertised
vide Bihar's Home Guard Employment
Advertisement No.-01/2025 without being
influenced by the pendency of criminal case and to
allow him to be appointed as Home Guards on
basis of future decision of the Competent Court as
has been done with candidates at Sr. no. 2, 3 and 9
of Annx.-P/4 of this writ petition.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)
declaring that cancellation of petitioner's selection
solely based on pending criminal charges without
conviction is unconstitutional and violative of
Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.
(iv) For grant of any other relief(s) to
which the petitioner may be entitled to in the facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.13356 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
3/5
and circumstances of the present case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that at the time of verification, it was found that a criminal case
was pending against the petitioner. He submits that in several
other cases, candidates against whom criminal cases, including
those under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, were
pending, were granted time and their cases were considered.
However, the case of the present petitioner has not been
considered, which amounts to discriminatory treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that in terms of Rule 12 of the advertisement, every
candidate was under an obligation to disclose the pendency of
any criminal case against him. The petitioner failed to disclose
the said fact in his application, and it was only during the
process of verification that the respondent authorities came to
know about the pending criminal case against him.
5. In light of the submissions advanced by the parties,
it appears to this Court that Rule 12 of the advertisement is the
most relevant provision for adjudication of the present
controversy. The same is reproduced hereunder:
“ukekadu ds iwoZ lHkh p;fur vF;fFkZ;ksa dk
iqfyl pfj= lR;kiu djk;k tk,xkA izfrdwy izfrosnu izkIr
gksus ij vFkok vH;FkhZ }kjk rF;ksa dks Nqik, tkus dh fLFkfr esa
lacaf/kr vF;FkhZ ukekadu ds fy, v;ksX; ?kksf’kr fd, tk,¡xAs
Patna High Court CWJC No.13356 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
4/5
fdlh vH;FkhZ ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa vkijkf/kd ekeyk yafcr
gksus vFkok U;k;ky; }kjk nks’kfl) ?kksf’kr fd, tkus ij jkT;
ljdkj ds izpfyr fu;eksa ds vkyksd esa mUgsa ukekadu ds fy,
v;ksX; ?kksf’kr fd;k tk,xk rFkk muds fo:) fof/k lEer
dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the judgment dated 31.03.2026 passed in Monu
Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others in CWJC No.
839 of 2025, wherein it has been held that the mere pendency of
a criminal case, without any adjudication of guilt, cannot by
itself operate as a bar to, or justify the deferment of, the
appointment of a candidate.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
parties, this Court finds that Rule 12 of the advertisement
assumes significant importance, as compliance with the said
provision is a condition precedent for consideration of
candidature. It is an admitted position that, at the time of
submitting the application form, the petitioner failed to disclose
the pendency of the criminal case against him, thereby violating
the mandatory requirement contained in Rule 12 of the
advertisement.
8. So far as the reliance placed on the judgment in
Monu Kumar and Others (supra) is concerned, this Court is of
the considered view that the legal principle laid down therein is
Patna High Court CWJC No.13356 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026
5/5
sound and in accordance with law. However, the facts of the
present case stand on a different footing. The impediment in the
present matter does not arise merely from the pendency of the
criminal case, but from the petitioner's failure to make the
mandatory disclosure as required under Rule 12 of the
advertisement. Consequently, the very non-compliance with the
eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement creates a
legal bar to the grant of relief. This Court, therefore, is of the
considered opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, no interference is warranted.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/Manshi
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18/06/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.