1. I have heard Mr. B.N. Dutta, learned senior counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents. I have also heard Mr. P. Dey, learned counsel, for the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8.

2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioners may be set out as under :

(i) Having been appointed, as Home Guards, under the Directorate of Civil Defence and Commandant General of Home Guards, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong, the services of the petitioners were placed, as Guardsman, in the office of the Accountant General, Shillong, ('the AG's office') on various dates, some of them having been appointed as far as back as in the year 1996 and they have continued to serve on duty assigned to them at the AG's office. In their orders of appointment, it was mentioned that their appointments were against the requirement of the AG's office and their appointment would remain valid as long as the requisitioning authority requires the services of the Meghalaya Home Guard volunteers and that no claim of the petitioners for absorption, in the units of the Home Guard, would be entertained if their services were no longer required by the requis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document