By the Court.—Heard Sri S.B. Singh alongwith Sri Madan Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner Rajveer Singh and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General alongwith Sri J.N. Maurya Chief Standing Counsel Ist for the State.

2. This reference arises out of the two questions framed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 30084 of 2003 (Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others) in relation to a stated conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court, namely, that of Riasat Ali v. State of U.P., 2003 (4) AWC 3046 and an unreported judgment of another Division Bench in the case of Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., Special Appeal No. 143 of 2012 decided on 5th April, 2012.

3. The learned Single Judge upon having entertained the writ petition was of the opinion that there arises a conflict between the above two judgments and further the ratio of the other Division Bench in the case of Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and another, did not lay down the correct law. The questions framed by the learned Single Judge to be considered by the Full Bench are as follows :

“(1). Whether Division Bench judgment in Riasat Ali v. State of U.P., 2003 (4) AWC 3046 holding that a Home Guard under U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 is not holder of a civil post in view of expression to Section 10 is correct or Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 143 of 2012 (Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) relying on Full Bench judgment in Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 86 (FB), which is a case relating to Anganbari Karyakatri and Supreme Court’s judgment in Davinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(4) ESC 582 (SC) which is in the context of Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 and Punjab Home Guards and Civil Defence (Field) Class III Service Rules, 1983 holding that Home Guard is a holder of civil post, is correct.

(2) Whether Division Bench in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has rightly held that Home Guard in State of U.P. governed by U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 is not holder of a civil post disagreeing with the earlier Division Bench judgment in Riasat Ali v. State of U.P. (supra) and relying on Full Bench judgment in Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 86 (FB) relating to Anganbari Karyakatri and Supreme Court’s judgment in Davinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (supra) which was not in relation to U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963, without referring the matter to Larger Bench?”

4. In order to understand the controversy, it would be apt to refer to the U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 where the concept of enrollment of home guards was introduced. It is an Act that was promulgated to raise a Volunteer Force for aiding the State Police Services as an auxiliary force. The said Act defines Home Guard under Section 2(e) as a person who is enrolled as such and includes as officer appointed under the Act. Section 2(g) defines the word “prescribed” to mean as the Rules framed under the Act. Section 2(j) defines service under the State to mean a service under the State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and includes service under any statutory corporation. The functions of Home Guards have been enumerated in Section 4 of the Act followed by the provisions of Section 6 which provide for superintendence and administration of such home guards appointed under the Act. The prescription for enrollment is provided for under Section 7 which is extracted hereinunder :

“7. Enrolment etc.—(1) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, any person desiring to be enrolled as home guards shall make an application in the prescribed form. If such applicant is in private service he shall make such application through his employer, or if in service under the State through the authority competent to grant him permission to join the force.

(2) A home guard shall be formally enrolled and on enrolment make a declarat