AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners by way of filing these writ petitions, in sum and substance, are claiming for the following reliefs :-
 SBCWP No.12254/2017
 “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 19.09.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents
may kindly be directed to continue the petitioner as a member of Home Guards and may also be further directed to provide continuous duties to the
petitioner.
(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which thisHon`ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to thepetitioner.â€
The petitioners herein were appointed as Home Guard in 2012 and were continuing to discharge their duties upto September, 2014. The
respondent no.3 vide order dated 19.9.2014 issued directions for not allowing various Home Guards to perform their duties, in which, name of
petitioners was also included. The respondent no.3 further sought certain instructions from respondent no.1 regarding removal of deficiencies on
account of which the petitioners were not being permitted to discharge their duties.  The appointment of petitioners was made in accordance with
Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Home Guards Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1962’), which is reproduced as under :-
“3. Appointment of member of Home Guards. â€
(1) No person shall be appointed as a member of the Home Guards, unless â€
(a) he has attained the age of 18 years and has not completedthe age of 45 years;
(b) he has passed at least the fourth standard examination inany language;
(c) he has been medically examined in accordance with thedirections of the Commandant General and is in the opinion of the Commandant physically
fit;
Provided that the Commandant General may relax the conditions regarding the age or educational qualifications prescribed in clauses (a) and (b)
above in suitable cases;
Provided further that the State Government may direct that in respect of any area the educational qualification for appointment as a member of the
Home Guards shall be such as it deems fit.â€
Rule 8 of the Rules of 1962 which envisages of the term of office reads as follows :-
“8. Term of office. - The term of office of a member of the Home Guards shall be five years. Provided that â€
(i) if any such member is found to be medically unfit to continueas a member of Home Guards his appointment may be terminated before the expiry of
the term of office;
(ii) a person appointed shall be eligible for reappointment;Â
(iii) the services of a member of the Home Guards may beterminated at any time by the Commandant or the Commandant General, as the case may
be, after giving one month's notice.â€
The petitioners are seeking relief to provide them duty/work as they were discharging as Member Home Guard prior to passing of order impugned
dated 19.9.2014 and they are being restrained on account of certain audit objection, which do not find place in Rules, particularly, audit objection as
regards residence of petitioners being more than 8 Kms away from the place of discharge of their duties. The petitioners belong to tribal areas.
Counsel for the petitioner states that from a bare perusal of Rule 3 & Rule 8 of the Rules of 1962, it is clear that the objections raised by the
respondents have no legal foundation at all, thus, it was illegal on the part of respondents to have restrained petitioners from discharging their duties of
Volunteer Home Guards after being properly selected.
Counsel for the respondents submits that as per instructions of Headquarter for appointment of Volunteer Home Guards on the basis of
advertisement of 2008, such volunteers must be a resident of that district within a distance of 8 Kms and because of that reason the audit-party had
raised objections, thus, to seek fulfillment of objection and for approval of the Director General, the petitioners have been discontinued for the time
being. It was furthermore stated that till fulfillment of deficiencies and approval is granted by the DGP, duty is not being given to petitioners and no
sooner approval is received by DGP, the petitioners shall be taken back on duty. Counsel for the respondent submits that further vide letter dated
19.11.2014 opportunity is being afforded to petitioners to fulfill/remove the deficiencies pointed out by Audit Team.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record, this Court finds that the respondents themselves are not clear as to status of
petitioners and have candidly admitted in their reply that the petitioners shall continue to remain Member Home Guards, however, duties are not being
assigned to them because of certain approval of audit objection, which has been sought from respondent no.1 is yet to be received. Counsel for the
respondent themselves have admitted that the petitioners shall be taken on duty soon after approval is received from the respondent no.1. This Court
has seen that the petitioners are discharging their duties as Home Guard since 2012 but were stopped from doing so on account of audit objection that
the petitioners were residing more than 8 Kms away from the place of discharge of duty. We do not find that such an audit objection has its root in
Rule 3 or Rule 8 or any other Rule of the Rules of 1962. More so, the respondents have not been able to satisfy the Court as to the exact reason why
the petitioners are not being given duty. This Court finds that once the petitioners have been appointed as Member Home Guards and appreciation
certificate has been granted to them and they were discharging their duties regularly until September, 2014, then any deprivation on account of any
distance or place of residence, is contrary to the Rules or any of the circulars or administrative orders made by the respondents. The respondents have
not shown anything from record or from their reply which would justify passing of impugned order dated 19.9.2014 restricting the petitioners from
being given duty.
In light of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order dated 19.9.2014 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to take back
the petitioners on duty. However, the petitioners shall be entitled to continue to serve strictly in accordance with the Rules or norms framed by the
respondents.