Rajinder Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents ‘to consider his case for the post of Fireman from amongst Home Guards who have successfully completed the course of Fireman’.

The petitioner was enrolled as Home Guard Volunteer in Home Guards 4th Battalion, Nahan on 1. 05.1990. He was allotted H.G. No.4/8-21. On his transfer to Home Guards 3rd Battalion, Shimla on 07.04.1995, different H.G. number was assigned to the petitioner, i.e. 3/1-55. The petitioner had successfully completed the Fireman course in the year 1992. Certificate in this regard issued to him on 23.02.1993, has been placed on record at Annexure P-3.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was discharged from the Home Guards Organization by respondent No.3 vide office order dated 07.08.2003 (Annexure R-1). The discharge was on the ground that the petitioner was called out to perform duties during the year 2003, but neither he attended his duty nor he intimated any reason for not attending the same. H.G. No.3/1-55 previously assigned to the petitioner was allotted to one Sh. Lucky Matoo on 13.02.2005. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner was no longer on rolls of the respondent-Organization after 07.08.2003 and Home Guard number allotted to him stood allotted to different individual on 13. 02.2005. The record shows that the petitioner made representation to respondent No.3 on 26.10.2013 (Annexure R-2) for his enrolment in the organization. Respondent No.3, vide his communication dated 31. 10.2013 (Annexure R-3), intimated the petitioner that for not attending the duties, he had already been discharged from the organization and therefore, it was for the petitioner to participate in the fresh recruitment process as and when held in future.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made a feeble attempt to submit that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent-Organization in the year 2013 and that the respondents had illegally not considered the candidature of the petitioner for his enrolment as Home Guard Volunteer. In this regard, suffice it to notice that firstly there is no prayer in the petition for enrolment of the petitioner as Home Guard Volunteer. Secondly, in support of the plea that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process initiated by the respondents in the year 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to Annexure P-6 and submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post of Home Guard Volunteer in terms of this annexure in the year 2013. However, Annexure P-6 does not indicate any post applied for by the petitioner. This document bears no date. Moreover, against the first serial number of this document, the enrolment number of the petitioner, i.e. 3/1-55, has been mentioned. In fact, this serial number could have been used by the petitioner only till 07.08.2003 and not after that. Hence, it is evident that Annexure P-6 pertains to the period prior to 07.08.2003. The respondents in their reply have categorically stated that the petitioner neither applied nor attended the recruitment process for filling up the post of Home Guard Volunteer undertaken by them in the year 2013.

Since the petitioner is not on the rolls of Home Guards Organization w.e.f. 07.08.2003, hence, the respondents cannot be directed to consider his case for the post of Fireman from amongst the Home Guards category. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition. The same fails and is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.