Orissa High Court
Kumuti Mandi vs Commandant General on 2 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8930 of 2025
Kumuti Mandi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Sidhartha Mishra
-versus-
Commandant General, Home ..... Opposite Parties
Guards, Odisha and another
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
02.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to admit the case,
issue rule NISI, calling show cause from the opp.
Parties as to why clause No-8 of the circular
under Annexure-8 shall not be quashed and
representation of the Petitioner shall not be
allowed within a specific period by giving an
appointment in the post of Home Guard and if
the opp. Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause, the rule be made absolute;
And may further be pleased to pass any other
Writ/(s), Order/(s), Direction/(s) as deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice and equity;"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
initially the Petitioner was engaged as a Home Guard on 09.11.2006.
While working as such, the Petitioner got entangled in a criminal
case, as a result of which he was disengaged from service on
05.03.2015. Thereafter, the Petitioner faced the trial in the pending
criminal case in C.T. No.30 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned
Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further contended that by virtue of the
judgment dated 13.05.2016, the Petitioner has been acquitted of all
charges in the above noted criminal case. He further submitted that
while acquitting the Petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case, the
learned trial Court has categorically mentioned that the independent
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and that the
evidences of the official witnesses are discrepant in nature.
Moreover, it has also been observed that the certain seizure made in
the above noted criminal case is doubtful in nature. Accordingly, the
learned trial Court has held that there is no clear and cogent evidence
that the sample which were produced in the Court have not been
tampered with. While acquitting the Petitioner, the learned trial Court
has categorically held that the case of the prosecution appears to be
doubtful. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that since the Petitioner has been
acquitted in the above noted criminal case due to lack of evidence
and the doubt cast by the trial Court with regard to the procedure
followed by the Investigating Officer, the Petitioner should have been
reinstated in service.
5. In course of his argument, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to a circular dated
20.01.2025 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition contended that
under Clause-8 of the said circular a provision has been incorporated
whereby the Home Guards, who are either resigned or discharged,
will be considered as fresh candidates and shall have to fulfill all the
conditions as applicable for fresh enrolment, with the only exception
being the cases of the Home Guards that are being reviewed for
renewal of their appointment. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in
reply of the aforesaid condition, contended that the aforesaid Clause
would not be applicable to the case of the Petitioner as the Petitioner
was disengaged due to his entanglement in the above noted criminal
case wherein he has already been acquitted subsequently. In such
view of the matter, he further contended that the case of the
Petitioner should be considered for his re-engagement after his
acquittal in the criminal case and not in terms of the Clause-8 of the
circular dated 20.01.2025 under Annexure-8. He further submitted
that in the meantime the Opposite Parties have issued a fresh
advertisement dated 13.03.2025 under Annexure-9 for recruitment of
the Home Guards in the State of Odisha.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further referring to the order dated 29.10.2021 under Annexure-5 to
the writ petition submitted that after his acquittal, the Petitioner has
approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing an appeal for his
reinstatement in service. The Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated
29.10.2021, under Annexure-5, refused to reinstate the Petitioner on
the ground that the Government of Odisha has taken a decision not to
appoint any Home Guards and all existing posts of Home Guard have
been abolished vide Home Department letter dated 22.02.2020. He
further contended that since the Ban on recruitment of the Home
Guard has been lifted and a fresh advertisement has been issued to
fill up the vacancies, the case of the Petitioner can very well be
considered against the existing vacancies for his reinstatement in
service and that the Clause-8 under the circular dated 20.01.2025
would not be applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's case.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
initially there was a Ban order with regard to recruitment of the
Home Guards in the State of Odisha and all existing posts were
abolished vide Home Department letter dated 22.02.2020. Therefore,
the case of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Opposite
Party No.1 by virtue of his order dated 29.10.2021. He further
contended that although such Ban order has been lifted and fresh
recruitment to the post of Home Guards is being carried out,
however, the case of the Petitioner can only be considered in terms of
the Rules and circular as should be applicable to the facts of the
Petitioner's case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
State contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any
illegality in rejecting the case of the Petitioner vide order dated
29.10.2021 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful analysis of their materials on record, further
keeping in view the factual background of the present case and
further taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has been acquitted in
the criminal case in which he was entangled while he was
discharging his duties as a Home Guard, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by remanding
the matter back to the Opposite Party No.1 with a direction to the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner afresh after
lifting of the Ban order. It is further directed that in the event the
Petitioner is found eligible by the Opposite Parties for his re-
engagement, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to re-engage the
Petitioner in service in accordance with law and in terms of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2014) 1 SCC 175, within a period of
three months, if there are no other legal impediments to the same.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Page 5 of 5.
