RAGHVENDRA SINGH Vs. DISTRICT COMMANDANT, HOME GUARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 13.12.1994 passed by the District Commandant, Home Guards, Mainpuri terminating the petitioner's services as Platoon Commander in the Home Guards, which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The said order is assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Ajit on the ground that the petitioner has been holding a civil post within the scope and ambit of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and as such the termination contravenes the said Article and as such can not be sustained. In order to appreciate the points raised it is necessary to refer to the brief facts of the case. The petitioner was appointed Home Guard on 16.12.1983 and had undergone several trainings detailed in various paragraphs of the writ petition and had been serving continuously since then in the said organisation. He was ultimately promoted to the post of Platoon Commander after having duly selected by the Selection Board. He joined the post of Platoon Commander on 9.9.1988 pursuant to an order dated 12.8.1988. Even after his said promotion he underwent further training successfully. He had rendered good service which is reflected in the certificate issued to him on 20.9.1993. Then came suddenly the order dated 13.12.1994 terminating the petitioner's service, copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

(2.) IN the said order, it is mentioned that the petitioner was holding the honorary post of Platoon Commander and that his service was no longer required in the organisation, therefore, his temporary and honorary service in the organisation was being terminated with immediate effect.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the scheme of the Act goes to show that the ingredient relevant for determination of a post as a civil post as discussed in the earlier judgment are present but then the explanation stands in the way despite presence of said ingredients. Unless the explanation is reconciled the same stares on the face. The same was never attempted to be explained in the earlier judgment. The later judgment has also not sought to make any distinction on the said explanation.