( 1 ) THE petitioner was a Platoon Commander in the Home Guard. His service was terminated by an order dated 7th March, 1996. This order is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Mr. Rajeshwri Sahai learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was holding a civil post as has been held in the decision in the case of Suraj Prasad Tewari. Vs. Zila Commandar, Hamirpur (1998 (2) UPLBEC 1484 ). Therefore his service could not be terminated without giving an opportunity as has been held in the case of Jawed Ahmad. Vs. State of U. P. and others (1999 (1) UPLBEC 655 ). On these grounds he prays that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed.

( 2 ) MR. K. R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that Section 12 of the U. P> Home Guard Adhiniyam, 1963 empowers an authority to terminate the petitioners service. He also contends that the petitioner did not hold the civil post in view of section 10 of the said Act. He further contended that for the purpose of discharge or resignation of the petitioner, who was a volunteer and holding the post without any remuneration would not be equated with the same status which was invol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document