IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13356 of 2025 ====================================================== Vikram Kumar Yadav S/o Tetar Prasad Yadav, Resident of village Babutola P.S.- Banka, Distt.-Banka, Bihar-813102. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General cum Commandant General, Bihar Home Guard and Fire Services, Bihar. 4. The District Commandant, Home Guards, Distt.- Banka, Bihar. 5. The District Magistrate, Distt.- Banka, Bihar. 6. The District Welfare Officer, Distt.- Banka, Bihar. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Distt.- Banka, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prashant Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocate Mr. Anal Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sitaram Yadav, GP-16 Yatindra Narayan, AC to GP-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-06-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner in the present writ application have prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) thereby quashing the decision of the District Selection Committee as contained in Memo no. 1047 dated 01.08.2025 with respect to the petitioner at Serial no.1 as contained in Patna High Court CWJC No.13356 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026 2/5 Prapatra-"Ga" whereby the petitioner's selection for the post of Home Guards has been cancelled in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner on the ground of bearing serious criminal allegations in Banka P.S. Case no.-527/18 dated 06.08.2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 427, 332, 334 of IPC, Chargesheet no.-356/2020 dated 29.08.2020 in which petitioner is on bail. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) thereby directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Home Guards advertised vide Bihar's Home Guard Employment Advertisement No.-01/2025 without being influenced by the pendency of criminal case and to allow him to be appointed as Home Guards on basis of future decision of the Competent Court as has been done with candidates at Sr. no. 2, 3 and 9 of Annx.-P/4 of this writ petition. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) declaring that cancellation of petitioner's selection solely based on pending criminal charges without conviction is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (iv) For grant of any other relief(s) to which the petitioner may be entitled to in the facts Patna High Court CWJC No.13356 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026 3/5 and circumstances of the present case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of verification, it was found that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. He submits that in several other cases, candidates against whom criminal cases, including those under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, were pending, were granted time and their cases were considered. However, the case of the present petitioner has not been considered, which amounts to discriminatory treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that in terms of Rule 12 of the advertisement, every candidate was under an obligation to disclose the pendency of any criminal case against him. The petitioner failed to disclose the said fact in his application, and it was only during the process of verification that the respondent authorities came to know about the pending criminal case against him. 5. In light of the submissions advanced by the parties, it appears to this Court that Rule 12 of the advertisement is the most relevant provision for adjudication of the present controversy. The same is reproduced hereunder: “ukekadu ds iwoZ lHkh p;fur vF;fFkZ;ksa dk iqfyl pfj= lR;kiu djk;k tk,xkA izfrdwy izfrosnu izkIr gksus ij vFkok vH;FkhZ }kjk rF;ksa dks Nqik, tkus dh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr vF;FkhZ ukekadu ds fy, v;ksX; ?kksf’kr fd, tk,¡xsA Patna High Court CWJC No.13356 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026 4/5 fdlh vH;FkhZ ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa vkijkf/kd ekeyk yafcr gksus vFkok U;k;ky; }kjk nks’kfl) ?kksf’kr fd, tkus ij jkT; ljdkj ds izpfyr fu;eksa ds vkyksd esa mUgsa ukekadu ds fy, v;ksX; ?kksf’kr fd;k tk,xk rFkk muds fo:) fof/k lEer dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 31.03.2026 passed in Monu Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others in CWJC No. 839 of 2025, wherein it has been held that the mere pendency of a criminal case, without any adjudication of guilt, cannot by itself operate as a bar to, or justify the deferment of, the appointment of a candidate. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties, this Court finds that Rule 12 of the advertisement assumes significant importance, as compliance with the said provision is a condition precedent for consideration of candidature. It is an admitted position that, at the time of submitting the application form, the petitioner failed to disclose the pendency of the criminal case against him, thereby violating the mandatory requirement contained in Rule 12 of the advertisement. 8. So far as the reliance placed on the judgment in Monu Kumar and Others (supra) is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the legal principle laid down therein is Patna High Court CWJC No.13356 of 2025 dt.15-06-2026 5/5 sound and in accordance with law. However, the facts of the present case stand on a different footing. The impediment in the present matter does not arise merely from the pendency of the criminal case, but from the petitioner's failure to make the mandatory disclosure as required under Rule 12 of the advertisement. Consequently, the very non-compliance with the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement creates a legal bar to the grant of relief. This Court, therefore, is of the considered opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference is warranted. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Ashwini/Manshi (Dr. Anshuman, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18/06/2026 Transmission Date NA