Patna High Court
Dinesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court declined to grant the writs and directed the petitioner to undergo age verification before the Circle Officer, leaving the final decision to the administrative authority.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar, challenged the rejection of his candidature for a Home Guard post, alleging that his date of birth was correctly recorded as 02-03-1991 while a clerical error had misrecorded his younger brother's birth date, leading to a complaint about a three‑month age difference. He claimed that the authorities rejected his application without a show‑cause notice or hearing, despite his higher merit score of 11 marks compared to the selected candidate's 9 marks, and sought certiorari to quash the objection and mandamus to direct his selection. The State argued that the petitioner failed to comply with a request for age verification and therefore could not be entertained. The Court held that the petition could not be granted at this stage and ordered the petitioner to appear before the Circle Officer for age verification within 30 days, after which a reasoned order must be passed. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature without a show‑cause notice violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether a three‑month age difference between the petitioner and his brother is a valid ground for disqualification.
- Whether the court can issue certiorari to quash the objection and mandamus to direct selection of the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to selection based on his higher merit marks.
Subjects
- Home Guard recruitment
- age verification
- merit list
- Scheduled Caste
- certiorari
- mandamus
- natural justice
- administrative law
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8998 of 2024
======================================================
Dinesh Kumar Son of Sitaram Das, Resident of Village- Rajabigha, Post-
Uchirma, Police Station- Sherghati, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General-cum- Commandant General, Home Guard and Fire
Extinguisher Services, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya, District- Gaya.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, District - Gaya.
5. The Senior District Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Gaya, District - Gaya.
6. The District Welfare Officer, Gaya, District Gaya.
7. The District Education Officer, Gaya, District - Gaya.
8. The Headmaster, Primary School, Raja Bigha, P.S. Sherghati, District -
Gaya.
9. Binod Kumar son of Ramgrish Paswan, resident of village- Kagachh, P.S.
Sherghati, District - Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s :-
“(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of CERTORARI for quashing the redressal of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8998 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
2/6
claim objection against the published provisional merit
list, so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby and
whereunder the committee was pleased to reject the
candidature of the petitioner on the objection filed by one
Dilip Chaudhary interalia on the ground that there is
difference of age of only three months in between the
petitioner and his brother namely Umesh Kumar
notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was born on
02.03.1991 and rightly his date of birth of the petitioner
was recorded in the Admission Register of the Primary
School, Raj Bigha as 02.03.1991 accordingly in the
transfer certificate, the age of the petitioner was
mentioned as 02.03.1991 but due to inadvertence, the age
of younger brother of the petitioner namely Umesh
Kumar was recorded in the Admission Register of the
School as 08.06.1991.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the
respondent authorities to select the petitioner as Home
Guard under Sherghati Block of Gaya district on the
ground that the petitioner belongs under the schedule
caste category, his name was placed at serial no.6 of
provisional merit list having 11 merit marks and the
persons namely Binod Kumar having got 09 merit marks
was selected ignoring the better merit marks of the
petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of any other appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the
writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was born on 02.03.1991 out of the wedlock of Sitaram
Das and Sumitra Devi. It is submitted that the petitioner was
admitted to Primary School, Raja Bigha, Sherghati, Gaya, where
his date of birth was duly recorded in the admission register as
02.03.1991. The petitioner left the said school on 06.04.2006
while studying in Class V, and the Headmaster issued Transfer
Patna High Court CWJC No.8998 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
3/6
Certificate No. 09/2006 dated 06.04.2006, mentioning his date
of birth as 02.03.1991. Learned counsel further submits that,
upon proper application, a caste certificate was issued by the
competent authority certifying that the petitioner belongs to the
Scheduled Caste category. Thereafter, residence and income
certificates were also issued in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel submits that Advertisement No. 02
of 2011 was issued for appointment to the post of Home Guard,
inviting eligible candidates to submit applications along with
requisite documents. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the
petitioner applied for appointment as Home Guard under the
Scheduled Caste category for Sherghati Block, Gaya district.
It is submitted that the petitioner participated in the selection
process and secured 1 mark in High Jump, 5 marks in Long
Jump, and 5 marks in Shot Put (Gola Throw), thereby obtaining
a total of 11 merit marks. In the provisional merit list published
by the respondents, the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No.
6 with 11 marks.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner’s younger brother, Umesh Kumar, also
applied pursuant to the same advertisement, and his name
appeared at Serial No. 1 of the merit list, having secured 12
Patna High Court CWJC No.8998 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
4/6
merit marks. Subsequently, a complaint was allegedly filed by
one Dilip Chaudhary challenging the candidature of the
petitioner and his brother on the ground that there existed only a
three-month difference between their dates of birth. It is
submitted that while the petitioner’s date of birth is 02.03.1991,
the date of birth of his younger brother was recorded as
08.06.1991. Learned counsel contends that due to inadvertence
at the time of admission of the petitioner’s younger brother, his
date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the school admission
register and consequently reflected wrongly in the Transfer
Certificate dated 06.04.2006.
6. Learned counsel further submits that without
issuance of any show-cause notice or affording an opportunity
of hearing, the respondents rejected the candidature of the
petitioner merely on the basis of a report submitted by the
District Education Officer, Gaya, vide Letter No. 1457 dated
25.11.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner’s date of birth has
consistently been recorded as 02.03.1991 in all relevant
documents and that his candidature has been adversely affected
solely due to the dispute concerning the date of birth of his
younger brother. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for
immediate interference by this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8998 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
5/6
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view
of the complaint regarding the three-month age difference
between the petitioner and his brother, a letter was issued
directing the petitioner to appear for verification of his age.
However, the petitioner allegedly failed to produce any
documentary evidence, as reflected in Annexure R/B. It is
further submitted that Annexure R/A evidences the request for
age verification, but the petitioner did not submit any
clarification before the District Education Officer, Gaya, or the
Commandant, Gaya. Learned counsel contends that whenever a
complaint is made, the concerned candidate is required to
furnish appropriate clarification.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the
petitioner to appear before the Circle Officer, Sherghati, Gaya
for verification and clarification of his age, along with all
relevant documents, within a period of 30 days from today. The
Circle Officer, upon consideration of the materials placed, shall
pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months
thereafter. It is made clear that the Circle Officer shall be at
liberty to call for reports from the District Education Officer as
well as the concerned school, if deemed fit and proper.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8998 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
6/6
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
present writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.