Patna High Court
Manoj KumarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that there was no illegality in the petitioner’s non‑selection as the eligibility criteria under Rule 5 of the Bihar Excise Constable Cadre Rules, 2014 were correctly applied.
Summary
The petitioner, an ex‑service defence personnel, applied for appointment as an Excise Constable under Advertisement No. 1 of 2015 but was rejected because he did not possess an intermediate (10+2) qualification from a board or council recognized by the State/Center, as required by Rule 5 of the Bihar Excise Constable Cadre (Appointment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. He contended that a 1986 Ministry of Personnel notification allowed matriculate ex‑servicemen with 15 years of service to be considered eligible for Group‑C posts requiring graduation, and sought writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash the selection decision. The respondents argued that the advertisement expressly incorporated Rule 5, which the petitioner failed to satisfy, and that the 1986 notification merely gave discretion to the employer. The Court examined the eligibility criteria and found that the petitioner’s Army graduation certificate did not meet the intermediate qualification requirement and that the cited Rajasthan High Court cases were not applicable. Consequently, the Court held there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the non‑selection and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑selection violated the reservation provisions for ex‑service personnel under the 1986 Ministry of Personnel notification.
- Whether Rule 5 of the Bihar Excise Constable Cadre Rules, 2014, requiring an intermediate (10+2) qualification from a recognized board, is a mandatory eligibility condition for ex‑service candidates.
- Whether the selection process was illegal, arbitrary or mala‑fide, justifying writs of certiorari or mandamus.
- Whether the petitioner’s Army graduation certificate can be treated as a valid educational qualification under the said rules.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- ex‑service reservation
- educational qualification
- recruitment rules
- Excise Constable
- selection board
- illegal arbitrary action
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1465 of 2017
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Son of Sri Jaynath Prasad, Resident of Village Sikanderpur
Post Katesar, Police Station- Bihta, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Chairman, Central Selection Board of Constable Shri Sal Tara Complex,
I.A.S. Colony, Bailey Road, Patna Bihar.
3. The Secretary, Central Selection Board of Constable, Shri Sal Tara Complex,
I.A.S. Colony, Bailey Road, Patna Bihar.
4. The Examination Controller, Registration, Excise, and Prohibition,
Department, Constable Excise, Patna Bihar.
5. The Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and pensions (Department of personnel & Training) New Delhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Kant Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, AC to GA- 9
For the UOI : Mrs. Kanak Verma, CGC
For the CSBC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
for the following reliefs:
“(A) Issue writ of certiorari, for
the Memo no. 177/C.S.C (R.T.I) dated
30.12.2016 (Annexure-8) information got
under right to information Act, by issued by
the Authority Central, Selection Board of
constable, Bihar, Patna to the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1465 of 2017 dt.06-01-2026
2/8
whereby and where under claim of the
petitioner for his appointment as Excise
constable as per Advertisement/Notification
No. 01/2015 has been rejected in illegal
Arbitrary, manner against the 25%
Reserved category Ex-Service (Defence) as
per Reservation chart also on the ground to
that his graduation certificate issued by
depot, Coy (MT/Sup) ASC Centre South)
C/O ASC, Centre & College, Bangalore
560007, as per guide line acquisition of
educational qualifications No. 15012, 8/82
Esst. (D) Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training New
Delhi, dated 12 February 1986 is not valid
certificate to appointment/selection in the
post of Excise Constable. As per said
Advertisement/notification No. 01/2015,
Central selection Board of constable.
Without verify the facts and legality of the
said graduation Certificate by competent
authority in this regard.
(B) To issue further writ of
certiorari to th quash the notification dated
25th February, 2014, Bihar Excise constable
cadre, (Selection and service Condition) of
Para-05 which is wrongly explanation.
(C) To issue the writ of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1465 of 2017 dt.06-01-2026
3/8
mandamus commanding the Respondent to
discharge there legal obligation to
appointment to the petitioner on the post of
Excise Constable under State of Bihar is
several District in which final merit list be
published but petitioner name not found in
the said list under Malafide and arbitrary
action.
(D) For proper action against
responsible respondents involved in such
illegal manner in selection of said process.
(E) For any relief/reliefs
petitioners may be found entitled to.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the
respondents having come out with Advertisement no. 1 of 2015
for appointment as Excise Constable, the petitioner who belong
to the category of ex-service (defence personnel) filed an
application for appointment.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not
been selected on the ground that as per Rule 5 of the Bihar
Excise Constable Cadre (Appointment & Service Conditions)
Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), the
candidate should have passed the intermediate examination
from a Board/Council recognized by the State/Central
Government or should have passed an equivalent examination.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1465 of 2017 dt.06-01-2026
4/8
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner in reference to notification dated 12.2.1986
(Annexure-6) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) that for
appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group-C posts, a
matriculate ex-servicemen who has put in 15 years or more of
service in the Armed Service of the Union may be considered
eligible for appointment to the post for which essential
educational qualification prescribed is graduation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner having worked as a driver in the
Indian Army for 17 years from 25.8.1994 to 31.8.2011, as
evident from the Indian Army Graduation Certificate dated
31.8.2011 (Annexure-5), his application for appointment
should not have been rejected on this ground. Reliance is
placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments
of the Rajasthan High Court brought on record as annexures to
the supplementary affidavit filed by him.
7. In response, opposing the writ application,
learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the
Advertisement no. 1 of 2015, the eligibility of the candidate
has been taken from Rule 5 of the Rules which is to the effect
Patna High Court CWJC No.1465 of 2017 dt.06-01-2026
5/8
that the candidate should have passed the intermediate (10+2)
examination on 1.1.2015 from a Board/Council recognized by
the State/Central Government or he should have passed an
equivalent examination. It is submitted that admittedly the
petitioner had not passed any intermediate examination
conducted by a recognized Board/Council nor has he passed
any equivalent examination.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further
submits that so far as reliance on the judgment of the Rajasthan
High Court is concerned, the Rules herein were not a subject
matter in the said case. Further even in the notification dated
12.2.1986, reliance on which has been placed by learned
counsel for the petitioner, discretion has been given to the
employer for considering the eligibility for appointment on the
respective posts. The relevant clause with respect to eligibility
being clear in Advertisement no. 1 of 2015, there is no
illegality in non-selection of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted
that final result has been published on 15.12.2016,
appointments pursuant thereto have been made and subsequent
advertisements have also been published for filling up the
subsequent vacancies.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.1465 of 2017 dt.06-01-2026
6/8
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
10. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
having applied for appointment as Excise Constable against
Advertisement no. 1 of 2015 in the category of ex-service
(defence personnel) on not having been appointed, has
preferred the instant application for the relief as stated herein
above.
11. The case of the petitioner is that from the
graduation certificate of the Indian Army issued to him on
31.8.2011, it would transpire that he served in the Indian Army
as a driver for 17 years from August 1994 to August 2011.
12. The reason for non-selection of the petitioner
as Excise Constable, as reflected from the letter dated
30.12.2016 (Annexure-8) written by the Public Information
Officer, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment),
Bihar, Patna to the petitioner is that in support of his
educational qualification submitted for selection, the petitioner
has produced the Army Graduation Certificate and not a
certificate of any Board/Council recognized by the
State/Central Government.
13. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that
clause 5 of the Rules (Annexure-3) provides the educational
Patna High Court CWJC No.1465 of 2017 dt.06-01-2026
7/8
qualification which is that a candidate should have passed
intermediate (10+2) or equivalent examination from a
Board/Council recognized by the State Government/Central
Government.
14. It may be mentioned here itself that a copy of
the Advertisement no. 1 of 2015 has been brought on record as
Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the educational qualification
mentioned therein is a reproduction of clause 5 of the Rules
with a further condition that the candidate should have passed
the same on or before 1.1.2015.
15. So far as the petitioner herein is concerned, in
support of his educational qualification, along with his
application he submitted a copy of the graduation certificate
dated 31.8.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Indian Army.
There is no dispute with the fact that it is not a certificate with
respect to an intermediate (10+2) or its equivalent conducted
by a Board/Council recognized by the State
Government/Central Government.
16. So far as the judgments relied on by learned
counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may only be observed
here that the same are of no assistance to the petitioner for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1465 of 2017 dt.06-01-2026
8/8
reason that Rule 5 of the Bihar Excise Constable Cadre
(Appointment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 which has
been reproduced as the eligibility criteria in the Advertisement
no. 1 of 2015 was not a subject matter of the cases being relied
on by learned counsel for the petitioner.
17. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
herein above, the Court finds no illegality in the petitioner not
having been selected as an Excise Constable pursuant to his
application made against Advertisement no. 1 of 2015. The
Court finds no merit in the instant application.
18. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 7.1.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…