Order Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant participated in the selection process for the post of constable in Bihar Police against the vacancies in Magadh Range, Gaya, pursuant to advertisement no. 1 of 2004. He was declared successful but was denied appointment by the Selection Committee because he was not given credit for training certificate as Home-guard on the ground that at the time of such training he was under age. The writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that he was below age of 19 years when he had entered Home-guard for the purposes of training, the age prescribed under Rule 4 of the Bihar Home-Guard Rule, 1955. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that at no point of time the concerned authority raised any objection to the enrolment of the appellant for training as Home-guard and he completed such training in the year 1989-90 and it would not be just and proper to ignore the training certificate of the petitioner after so many years and thereby deny his appointment to the post of constable. In support of such contention learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Brajendra Kumar and Another VS. The State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 10997 of 1997 decided on 27.7.1999). A copy of that judgment is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Learned writ court has distinguished that judgment by holding that, that case related to age qualification for the purpose of appointment as constable. 4. We have carefully gone through that judgment and have noticed that the issue was same as the issue involved in the present case which relates to age qualification at the time of enrolment for training as Home-Guard. After noticing the issue in paragraph-2 of the judgment, it was held in the subsequent paragraph that since at no point of time there was any objection to completion of training as Home-guard on the ground of age qualification, the training certificate of Home Guard required consideration and could not have been ignored. 5. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed in the case of Brajendra Kumar (supra). Following the same judgment this appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set Appellant Side. 5. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed in the case of Brajendra Kumar (supra). Following the same judgment this appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set Appellant Side. The respondents are directed to treat the Home Guard certificate of the appellant as a valid certificate and on that basis grant him the required points for the purpose of selection and appointment to the post of constable. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of three months from today. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.