R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Petitioners had claimed their regularisation on the ground that they worked for a long period under respondents No. 6 and 7 but were disengaged. Pursuant to the order passed on 5th August, 2002 in this writ petition, the authorities considered the matter and rejected the petitioners' claim by order dated 4.2.2003 (Annexure 21) which has been challenged by the petitioners by way of an amendment petition (I.A. No. 510 of 2003).
2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were Home Guards and in view of the letter dated 9.1.1997 issued by the District Commandant (Annexure 7), petitioners should be regularised. He relied on the order dated 6.3.2002 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 2168 with 2223 of 2001 in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey etc. He also submitted that the petitioners were public servants.
3. Learned Counsel for the State relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, He further relied on the following portions of the Division Bench Judgment in Jharkhand Grih Raksha Vahini Swayam Sewak Sangh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2001(2)]hr CR 69 (hr):
2. It appears that in March, 1959, consequent upon certain decisions taken by the Central Government a purely voluntary organisation was set up and brought into existence for enrollment of Home Guards. In so far as the State of Bihar is concerned (in this petition the Bihar Home Guards Act, 1947 is applicable to the State of Jharkhand as well), the Preamble of Bihar Home Guards Act, 1947 clearly underlines the need for the setting up of a purely voluntary organisation to assist in the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the State and to increase the habit of self reliance and discipline among the members of the force in particular and public in general and to develop in them a sense of civic responsibilities. With this aim in view, under Section 3 of 1947 Act, an organisation by the name of Home Guards was created, which was to discharge, inter alia, such functions in relation to the protection of persons, security of properties, public safety in any area within the State etc. as were to be assigned to the members of the force in accordance with the provisions of 1947 Act. Under Section 8 of 1947 Act, it has clearly been laid down and provided that a Home Guard is required to serve the State Government for a period of 12 months but such period may be extended by the State Govt., if it considers necessary. But in no case such an extension can go beyond a period of three years, which means that in all a Home Guard, being a member of the force, can serve for a maximum period of four years from the date of his enrollment as prescribed under Section 3 (supra).
3. Even while we are referring the subject matter of this petition for consideration of the Director General (Home Guards), we wish to observe that mere enrollment of a person as a Home Guard under 1947 Act does not guarantee him any right for being called up for duty because the scheme of 1947 Act clearly suggests that the deployment on duty of a Home Guard is not a matter of right, even though it is obligatory on the part of the members of the Force to report on duty whenever called upon to do so, as is clear from a reading of Sections 4, 5 and 10 and other related provisions of 1947 Act. We are further of the view, based on our reading and appreciation of the provisions of 1947 Act that the Home Guards' Organisation having been raised as a voluntary organisation for the purpose as enacted in 1947 Act, it cannot be ever said that it was raised to provide job opportunity or livelihood to the members of the Force. In fact, under the Scheme of the 1947 Act we fell that self employed or otherwise employed persons are supposed to join this organisation to render service voluntarily in the hour of need or at the call of the nation, or for the welfare of the society or the interest of the State. The nobel idea of raising an organisation like Home Guards is broad based and, therefore, it should be kept in mind that such an organisation is not created to provide job opportunity or employment avenues to its members.
He further submitted that the Home Guards are engaged and deputed as per the requirement, and against which they are paid a fixed honorarium. He also argued that the Home Guards may be called as public servant while discharging their duties but that cannot be a ground for regularisation. Regarding Annexure 7, he submitted that the State Government is not bound by such letter written by the District Commandant, as per his understanding.
Supporting the impugned order dated 4.2.2003 (Annexure 21) he submitted that as per the Home Guards Act, 1947 and the Home Guard Rules, 1953 read with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home, Government of India, the engagement as Home Guard is not for providing employment to the persons who volunteered their services as Home Guards. Sometimes, such engagement continues for a longer periods, as per the work, but that cannot be made the basis of claiming regularisation/absorption in Government Service. There is no such provision for regularisation/absorption on the ground of engagement for a long period. He lastly submitted that petitioners made interpolation in their service records and, therefore, they were withdrawn from their duty on 22/29.6.2001 under the orders of the Deputy Commandant General, Jharkhand (Annexures R-7/A and R-7/B.) but by suppressing these orders passed by the superior officer they made representations before the Divisional Commandant and got engaged on sympathetic ground after a year or so. However, when this suppression of fact came to light, they were withdrawn immediately, on or about July and September, 2002. State counsel also submitted that the petitioners suppressed all these facts from this Court also.
4. I find force in the submissions of learned State counsel. Annexures R-7/A and R-7/B shows that the petitioners were withdrawn from duty from 22.6.2001 for insubordination. In reply to the supplementary counter affidavit, petitioners did not dispute this fact. Petitioners suppressed the aforesaid orders and got themselves engaged after about a year. However, when these facts came to light, they were withdrawn. Petitioners further suppressed the said orders in this case. Thus the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts.
5. Further in the recent judgment of Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi (Supra), it has been held, inter alia, that no Court should direct any more regularisation, as the same is against the Law of Recruitment. The order of Birendra Kumar Pandey (Supra) and other orders/judgments, relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioners were passed prior to the recent Constitution Bench judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) .
6. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 4.2.2003 (Annexure 21). Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.