Patna High Court
Fulendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioners failed to rebut the State’s evidence that they did not qualify the physical test.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of residents from Supaul district, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar to consider their applications for Home Guard posts under Advertisement No. 01/2006/02/2011. They claimed to have participated in the selection process, cleared the physical test, and that the final result was published in 2019, yet they were not considered for empanelment. The State responded with a counter‑affidavit asserting that none of the petitioners qualified the physical test, attaching a master chart as evidence. The petitioners did not file any rejoinder to the State’s reply. Relying on the State’s evidence and the lack of a rebuttal, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a mandamus directing the State to consider their applications for Home Guard posts
- Whether the petitioners satisfied the physical test requirements as alleged by the petitioners
Subjects
- Home Guard recruitment
- Writ of mandamus
- Physical test
- Administrative law
- Selection process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.65 of 2025
======================================================
1. Fulendra Yadav son of Maheshwari Yadav Resident of village- Basua, P.O.-
Basbitti, ward no.12, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul-852130.
2. Vidyanand Ram son of Nandelal Ram resident of village- Bhurahi, ward
no.11, P.O.- Basbitti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul-852130.
3. Santosh Kumar son of Anandi Ram resident of village- Bhurahi, ward no.11,
P.O.- Basbitti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul-852130.
4. Ashok Ram son of Anandi Ram resident of village- Bhurahi, ward no.11,
P.O.- Basbitti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul-852130.
5. Umesh Ram son of Bhumi Ram resident of village- Bhurahi, ward no.11,
P.O.- Basbitti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul-852130.
6. Manish Raj son of Satya Narayan Sharma resident of village- Bhurahi, ward
no.11, P.O.- Basbitti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul-852130.
7. Alok Kumar Mandal son of Ram Prasad Mandal resident of village-
Bhurahi, ward no.10, P.O.- Basbitti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul-852130.
8. Jagdev Sada son of Rasiklal Sada resident of village- Bhurahi, ward no.11,
P.O.- Basbitti, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul-852130.
9. Gunnanand Ram son of Anandai Ram resident of village- Bhurahi, ward
no.11, P.O.- Basbitti, P.S.- Supaul, District Supaul-852130.
10. Binod Kumar Yadav son of Kalanand Yadav resident of Basabitti,
Mushahriniya, Ward no.-01, District- Supaul- 852130.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General Of Police, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Baily road, Patna,
Bihar.
4. The Director General-cum- Commandant General, Home Guard and Fire
Services, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Supaul, District- Supaul.
6. The Commandant Bihar Home Guard, At Supaul, District- Supaul.
7. The District Selection Committee through the Chairman cum District
Magistrate, Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, GP-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.65 of 2025(6) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
6 10-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief:-
“For issuance of a writ in the
nature of "Mandamus" whereby and
whereunder commanding and directing the
state respondents hereinabove to consider
the case of the aforesaid petitioners for the
post of Home Guards in relation to
advertisement no. 01/2006/02/2011 for
which the petitioners hereinabove had
applied for empanelment as home guards in
the District of Supaul but their cases have
not been considered by the state
respondents.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners appeared for Advertisement No. 01/2006, which was
subsequently amalgamated into Advertisement No. 02/2011.
Counsel further submits that the petitioners participated in the
selection process, including the physical test, and were
successful. However, despite their success, they were not
considered. The final result was published in 2019. As the
petitioners were not considered, they have filed the present writ
petition before this Hon’ble Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.65 of 2025(6) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that a counter affidavit has been filed and contends that
the claim of the petitioners is absolutely perverse, as it is the
specific stand of the State that none of the petitioners were
found qualified in the physical test conducted for the post of
Home Guard. In this regard, the State has annexed a copy of the
master chart as Annexure R/1.
5. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires to this
Court that the counsel for the petitioners has not filed any
rejoinder to the reply made in the counter affidavit.
6. In view of the submissions made above,
particularly the specific stand of the State that none of the
petitioners have completed the physical test, as supported by the
master chart, and also considering that no rejoinder has been
filed by the petitioners, this Court has no option but to accept
the pleadings of the State.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…