Patna High Court
Ritesh Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The amendment requiring Home Guard candidates to undergo the same physical efficiency test as Bihar Police constables is constitutionally valid and not arbitrary, and candidates who participated in the selection process are estopped from challenging it after failure.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of Home Guard personnel, challenged the validity of Rule 2 of the Bihar Home Guard Service (2nd Amendment) 2017 which required them to undergo the same physical efficiency test as Bihar Police constables for appointment as Constable and Driver Constable. They argued that the physical standards – a one‑mile run in six minutes, shot‑put of 16 lb for at least 16.5 ft and a high‑jump of four feet – were arbitrary and that, having served five years and passed the written exam, they should be exempted from the test. The State defended the rule, citing the Bihar Home Guard Service Rules 2005 and the need for physical fitness in constabulary duties, and asserted that the rule was a valid exercise of legislative power. The Court examined precedents on estoppel, holding that candidates who participate in a selection process cannot later challenge its validity after failure. Applying the rational nexus test under Article 14, the Court found the physical test reasonable and the rule constitutionally valid, dismissing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 2 of the Bihar Home Guard Service (2nd Amendment) 2017, mandating the same physical efficiency test as for Bihar Police constables, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether Home Guard candidates are entitled to exemption from the physical efficiency test despite prior service and written‑exam qualification.
- Whether a candidate who has participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging the validity of the recruitment rules after being unsuccessful.
Subjects
- Home Guard
- Physical Efficiency Test
- Recruitment
- Constitutional validity
- Article 14
- Estoppel
- Reservation
- Police Constable
Judgment
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
5/12
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
6/12
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
7/12
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
8/12
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
9/12
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
10/12
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
11/12
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
12/12
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
Checking your session…