ANANTA KISHORE PANDIT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ramakanta Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THE petitioners, ten in number, are ex -Home Guards employed in Jajpur district, challenging the order of termination of their services issued vide Annexure -2 dated 29.4.2006 with effect from 30.4.2006 on the ground that they have served for more than 6 years, have filed this writ application. The aforesaid termination was made as indicated in the counter affidavit by following the instructions issued as per the Home Guards Compendium of Instruction, 1985 issued by Government of India in their Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. Rule 1.10 i.e., Home Guards Enrollment Policy envisages that unemployed persons should not be retained as Home Guards over the stipulated period so as to preserve the voluntary character of the organization. By retaining Home Guards for longer period, erosion in the voluntary character of the organization is taking place. In this regard, it is worthwhile to quote the provision of law i.e., Section 3 of Orissa Home Guards Act, 1961, which runs as follows : -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 3 of the Act, the appointment was made as per the approval of the Commandant -General, who are fit and willing to serve as Home Guards. Rule 3 provides the minimum age/maximum age limit, educational qualification and physical fitness.