Raj Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 413 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                  CWP No. 3624 of 2020
                                  Decided on: 07.01.2021
    __________________________________________________________________




                                                                          .
    Raj Kumar                                 ....Petitioner





                            Versus

    State of H.P. and others                ......Respondents





    __________________________________________________________________
    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.





    1 Whether     approved for reporting?
    ______________________________________________________
    For the petitioner:                        Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.

    For the respondents:                       Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Addl. AG with
                       r                       Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. AG.

    Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.                  (oral)

The writ petitioner became enrolled, as, a volunteer in

the Home Guards, in the year 1997, and, continued, as such, upto

the year 2001. However, through, show cause notice (Annexure

R-1), the petitioner was asked to explain, within a period of seven

days, as to why, he remained absent during the dates of

course/duty, and, through Office Order (Annexure P-1), the

respondent concerned discharged the service of the petitioner, as,

a Volunteer, in Home Guards, for not replying the show cause

notice (Annexure R-1).

2. Be that as it may, the effects of all the afore may,

become undone, rather only for ensuring that since, the writ

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

petitioner, is otherwise, not, declared, in the reply, on affidavit,

sworn by the respondent, to be unfit, for performing the apposite

duties, nor, is declared therein, to, during the tenure, of, his

.

service as a Volunteer in the Home Guards, qua his not performing

his duties, with lack of efficiency, and, or his mis-conducting,

himself, (i) thereupons, besides when the perusal, of, Annexure P-

2, discloses that the persons aspiring to be re-enlisted as

Volunteer(s) in the Home Guards, are not, to cross the prescribed

therein age bar of 50 years, (ii) thereupon, when it is stated at the

Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the writ

petitioner has not crossed the apposite age bar, hence, the

respondents concerned, are, directed to, subject, to his also

meteing compliance with Rule-3, of Annexure P-3, inasmuch as,

his being (a) not less than 18 years and not more than 50 years of

age, (b) is of good moral character; (c) is physically fit to undergo

arduous out-door duties and has been medically examined and

found to be of normal health; (d) is at least literate in Hindi; (e) is

not wholly engaged in any course of study in any educational

institution and has an employment or profession; (f) is not a

member of the Territorial Army; (g) takes an oath of allegiance to

the constitution of India and to the Government of Himachal

Pradesh as laid down in the form of pledge appended to these

rules, hence proceed to consider the request of the petitioner, for,

his re-enrollment, as a Volunteer in the Home Guards.

3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

.

Also, the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No costs.

(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge 7th January, 2021 (CS/virender)