The court emphasized the need for consistency in administrative decisions regarding appointments, particularly about merit lists, ensuring fair processing of candidates' eligibility and rights.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

3 12-12-2025 1. This is the prima facie observation of this Court that in respect of appointment of Home-Guards, the State of Bihar in the Department of Home and the Director General- cum-Commandant General, Home-Guard, Bihar, Patna are going on issuing one after another notifications/circulars and taking decisions contrary to each other at different point of time.

2. In connection with Advertisement No. 2 of 2011, vacancies for 240 posts of Village Home-Guards and 34 post of Urban Home-Guards for the district of Jamui was declared. Initially, 44 persons were selected and empaneled. Subsequently, during document verification, candidature of 31 candidates, out of the said 44 selected persons, was canceled. Thereafter, a second merit-list was prepared; the petitioners were empaneled; and their documents were verified. After empanelment of the petitioners, the District Magistrate, Jamui issued letter to the Sr. District Commandant on 18^th of August, 2023 to send the selected candidates for training as per the Direction No. 6, vide letter dated 27^th of May, 2023. For the reason unknown to the petitioners, they were not, however, given appointment and sent them for training.

3. Against such inaction on the part of the above-

named Respondents, the petitioners preferred C.W.J.C. No. 5821 of 2024. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the Director General of Home-Guards, Bihar, Patna, Respondent No. 3, to consider the case of the petitioners for their admission as Home-Guards as per their eligibility in accordance with law.

4. The concerned authority did not take any action, which led the petitioners to file a contempt application. On the basis of the order passed in the Contempt Petition, the Director General – cum Commandant General, Home-Guard, Bihar, Patna, passed an order, stating, inter alia, that the publication of second merit-list was not in accordance with the Rules of the Department and, therefore, the second merit-list was wrongly published and by virtue of the said merit-list, the petitioners have not accrued any right to the post. The writ petitioners have challenged the said decision in the instant writ petition. 4. It appears from Annexure-7 of the writ petition that the Home-Guards were appointed from second merit-list in the district of Siwan and Patna, so in respect of some districts, second merit-list was accepted. However, in respect of the district of Jamui, the second merit-list was accepted.

5. This Court fails to follow the reason subscribed by the Respondent No. 3 in this regard in respect of petitioners in the district of Jamui. It is also found from Annexure-P/11, being a copy of Advertisement No. 1 of 2025, that the appointing authority in paragraph 11(2) clearly states that if the empaneled Home-Guard is found unfit medically or due to certain other reasons his candidature is cancelled or he submits letter of resignation, candidates from second merit-list shall be considered for appointment.

6. Learned Advocate on behalf of the State Respondents vehemently urged that Clause-11 of Advertisement No. 1 of 2025 was not there in the old advertisement. Therefore, there was no provision to prepare second merit-list, nominating the petitioners for appointment.

7. I am not in a position to accept such submission made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondents because of the fact that when in respect of the districts of Siwan and Patna, second merit-list was considered and Home-Guards were appointed from second merit-list, there is no reason to take different view in respect of appointment of Home-Guards in the district of Jamui

8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order, dated 15^th of Janu