$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10257/2019 SURESH KUMAR KAUSHIK & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Ms.

Khushboo Gupta, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Ms.

Archana Chaudhary, Ms. Prajna Pandita, Advocates.

Mr. Ayushman, Mr. Vaibhav Sood, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026

1. The Petitioners were recruited as Home Guards under the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 as extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and the Delhi Home Guards Rules, 1959 framed thereunder. Their engagement was for a fixed tenure, initially three years, in terms of Rule 8. They assert that, between 1998 and 2005, their engagement was brought to an end by invoking Rule 8, even though their performance was satisfactory.

Factual Background

2. The heart of the present case is not the fact of discharge itself, but the aftermath. The Petitioners contend that, once discharged, they ought to have been “rehabilitated” by absorption into Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts in Government departments such as Police, Armed Police and Prisons, with age relaxation, on the footing of a policy reflected in communications issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Petitioners also rely upon subsequent correspondence between the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Directorate of Home Guards, and Delhi Police, where a proposal for 5% reservation in certain posts was mooted but did not fructify.

3. In a prior round [W.P.(C) No. 2075/2018], this Court disposed of a petition on 6^th March, 2018, granting liberty to the Petitioners to submit a concise representation and directing its disposal by a speaking order within a stipulated time. The representation was thereafter dealt with by an order dated 7^th December, 2018, and the contempt proceedings instituted by the Petitioners were closed, with liberty to pursue remedies, in accordance with law.

4. The Petitioners seek (i) a direction to “absorb” the Petitioners by providing 50% reservation of vacancies in suitable Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts, (ii) a direction to Delhi Police to act expeditiously on the proposal for 5% reservation urged by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Directorate of Home Guards, and (iii) a direction for age relaxation for the Petitioners in such recruitment. Petitioner’s Case

5. The Petitioners’ claim for rehabilitation is rooted in the policy reflected in the GNCTD circular dated 10^th September, 1999. According to the Petitioners, the circular recognises that trained Home Guards/Civil Defence volunteers who have rendered at least three years’ service ought to be given preference for appointment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts where the training received is an added advantage, subject to fulfilment of the essential eligibility conditions. The circular also records that the Ministry of Home Affairs had appreciated the practice adopted by States such as Bihar and Madhya Pradesh of providing substantial reservation in police/armed police/jails for Home Guards and noted that those examples ought to be emulated, even if recruitment rules require suitable amendment.

6. It is urged that despite repeated representations over the years, the said policy objective has not been operationalised in Delhi in any meaningful manner. The Petitioners contend that the prolonged inaction has defeated the purpose of the welfare measure itself, because most discharged Home Guards, including the Petitioners, have now crossed the age limit for ordinary direct recruitment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts. They submit that, without age relaxation and a structured preference or earmarking mechanism, the policy remains a paper assurance.

7. The Petitioners further submit that the issue was not merely historical, but continued to be under consideration even in recent years. They point out that Respondent No. 1, through letters dated 2^nd January, 2018 and 24^th January, 2019, a