Regularisation of voluntary service cannot be mandated by courts without adherence to constitutional provisions and existing legal frameworks.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction upon the State respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner to the post of Bandman or Quarter Guardman or any other Grade-IV post or to allow the petitioner to go on voluntary pension with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 2003 considering the extraordinary case of the petitioner. To decide as to whether the reliefs so sought for by the petitioner in the instant proceedings can at all be granted by this Court, it would be relevant to take note of facts that led to the filing of this instant writ petition.

3. The petitioner, admittedly, is a Home Guard who has voluntarily provided his service. He was appointed in the year 2003 as stated in the writ petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 01.04.2015, while discharging his duties in the Office of the District Commandant, Home Guards, Kohima his superior officer, while fiddling with the .303 Rifle shot the petitioner at the gluteal region of the pelvic bone. The petitioner was thereupon taken to the hospital wherein he received treatment. The petitioner was discharged on 04.04.2015 after an unsuccessful surgery. The petitioner thereupon continued to render his service and sought for regularisation by submitting a Representation on 15.05.2020 on the specific ground that he had sustained bullet injury on duty and under such exceptional circumstances the petitioner ought to be regularised on health grounds so that he can avail the necessary benefits. The said Representation having not been considered the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C)/74/2020. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an Order dated 24.07.2020, whereby the State respondents were directed to consider the said Representation. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Representation was not considered in the manner in which it ought to have been done and the Representation was rejected on flimsy grounds. It is under such circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs as above mentioned. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have adopted a pick-and- choose policy in as much as on one hand the petitioner was not considered for regularisation and on the other hand there were 6 other persons who were also Voluntary Home Guards, who were appointed to different posts vide an Order dated 28.04.2010.

4. It is seen that pursuant to filing of the instant writ petition, this Court had issued Notice vide an Order dated 03.11.2020. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition on 29.07.2021. In the said affidavit-in-opposition the reasons were mentioned as to why it was difficult to absorb the services of the petitioner in regular service. The reasons mentioned were:

i) The Nagaland Home Guards Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988) stipulates that the service of the Home Guards is voluntary in nature and their service is requisitioned on daily wages basis only.

ii) As per the Service Rules, i.e., the Nagaland Home Guards (Non- Gazetted) Rules 2015 and more particularly, Rule 6 (i) direct recruitment to the cadre of Guardsman/Bandman shall be made by open competition from amongst the candidates who possess the qualification as prescribed for open competition.

iii) The Supreme Court in the case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association –Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6SCC 247 had categorically mentioned at paragraph- 39 that “...no relief can be granted to the appellants therein either for regularisation of servic