The main legal point established in the judgment is that the organization of the Home Guards is a voluntary organization, and appointments made in violation of the recruitment rules and constitutional requirements would be nullities.

( 1 ) THE status of the home guards appointed in terms of the bombay Home Guard Act, 1947 (in short, the said Act ) as extended to Delhi is the question involved in these three writ petitions.

( 2 ). The writ petitioners herein were appointed as Home guards. Their services were sought to be terminated pursuant where to they filed original applications before the, Central administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), which had been dismissed inter alia on the ground that they are not holders of civil post.

( 3 ). The contention of the petitioners is that the State under the garb of the statutory scheme under the said Act read with Delhi home Guard Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) had been abusing their statutory power in terms whereof the Home guards are recruited as labourers to supplement the normal regular work force engaged in its various Departments such as Police, railways, etc.

( 4 ). The modus operand! of the respondents, according to the petitioners, is that their services are utilized as regular employees performing duties of regular nature continuously for years together and thus although they have become public / civil servants for all intents and purports, their services are terminated on mere whims and fancies of the State. Despite the fact that the petitioners had been appointed in terms of the provisions of the said Act, according to the learned counsel, there exists a relationship of master and servant between the State and the petitioners.

( 5 ). It has been contended that the Home Guards are paid out of the Central Government Fund. They performed their duties under the control and supervision of the Officers of the Government. The duties assigned to them are public in nature and the same are performed as the regular employees of the State. They are also working for the whole time and their services are not requisitioned only in emergency.

( 6 ). In that view of the matter, the petitioner would contend that it cannot be said to be a voluntary work by any stretch of imagination.

( 7 ). Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the petitioners are being exploited by taking advantage of the unemployment and poverty prevailing in the country and such an attitude on the part of the state; namely, exploiter of labour must be held to be illegal. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Daily Rated Casual Labour employed Under Pandt Department v. Union of India and Ors.

( 8 ). The learned counsel would contend that such a practice is violative of the provisions contained in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India ( in short, the Constitution ) as thereby their basic human rights as also the fundamental rights are violated.

( 9 ). The learned counsel would contend that having regard to the fact that the employees have been working for a period of more than 240 days, their services should be directed to be regularized. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Secretary, haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and Ors. etc. Management of d. C. Dewan Mohideen Sahib and Sons and Janab S. Ahmed Hussain and sons v. Secretary, United Beedi Workers Union Salem and Anr. ; Union of India and Anr v. U. D. Dwived ; and Workmen Employed in Associated rubber Industry Ltd. , Bhavnaaar v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. , bhavnagar and Anr.

( 10 ). Relying upon or on the basis of the decision of the Apex court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors. ; the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that not only protection is to be extended to the employees, but also such protection of health and strength of workers, men and women, and their children must be extended so as to prevent abuse and lack of opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational