The main legal point established is that Home Guards are not civil servants and are appointed as a disciplined volunteer force, and any deviation from the legislative policy would be ultra vires.

( 1 ). The first petitioner is an association of Home Guards. They were appointed in terms of the provisions of Bombay Home Guards act, 1947. The said Act has been extended to Delhi. They are allegedly appointed with a view to assisting the regular police personnel to maintain law and order. Although they initially were appointed on voluntary basis, they used to receive honorarium for their services. However, they performed the job of regular employees. The Delhi Administration issued a notification, inter alia, for regulating the rules of the Home Guards, Rule 8 Whereof reads thus:

"8. Term of Office - The term of office of a member of the Home Guards shall be three years. Provided that the appointment of any such member may, at any time be terminated by the Commandant General or the commandant, as the case may be, before the expiry of the term of office - (a) by giving one month s notice, or (b) without such notice, if such member is found to be medically unfit to continue as a member of Home Guards. "

( 2 ) HAVING regard to the fact that Home Guards are appointed for a period of three years, they are normally discharged from service upon expiry of the said period or re-appointed. An organization known as home Guards Organization was also formed which allegedly became very useful in maintaining day-to-day law and order situation. There are about 25000 members in the association and they had been working for more than 25-30 years now. However, fresh appointments were stopped as it was alleged that officials of the said Home Guard Organization had been taking money and in some cases they had been caught red-handed. Large number of discharge orders without assigning reasons were issued in terms of the notification dated 28th July 1959 and in particular in terms of Rule 8 afore-mentioned. In the afore-mentioned premises, the petitioners have filed this petition praying for the following reliefs:

" (I) By issuance of an appropriate writ, direction and order in the nature of mandamus declaring the provisions of Rule 8 of the Delhi Home Guards Rules 1959 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the constitution of India; (ii) declare the provisions of Section 4 of the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 also illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires to the provisions of Article 16 (1) of the constitution of India for the reasons that the aforesaid Section is wholly unguided, arbitrary for the reasons it permits use of illegal, arbitrary provisions without adherence to the principles of natural justice and is not in consonance with the latest principles of natural justice enunciated by the Courts in its modem judgments. (iii) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus and / or a like nature writ, inter alia, declaring all such discharge orders illegal and arbitrary done in exercise of such rules. (iv) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to formulate and propound a scheme or policy as has been already directed by this Hon ble Court and the central Administrative Tribunal formulating a scheme to absorb all the members of the force of home guards, and to ensure that there are no such discharge orders in future, and in the alternative, direct regularisation of such home guards who have completed three years of regular services on the basis of their seniority. (v) prohibit the respondents by issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from indiscriminately discharging the members of the petitioner association or any other writ, direction or order in the like nature may be issued; (vi) issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the home guards from the dates of their respective joinings on the basis of the principles of "last come first go"; (vii) award costs of the present writ petition; (viii)