HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6263 of 2024 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the rival parties do not propose to file any further affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was engaged as PRD Jawan, however, he stood entangled in two criminal cases one being Case Crime No. 268 of 2022 under Section 7/13 of the Anti Corruption Act and the other one Case Crime No. 265 of 2022 under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. Though the writ petitioner claims to have been enlarged on bail, however, he has not been permitted to discharge duties. As per the writ petitioner, in the year 2023 was allowed to perform duties but thereafter, he has not been allowed to perform duties. 4. Prayer in the present petition is for direction to the respondents to deploy to the writ petitioner as PRD Jawan. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the writ petitioner had been engaged in terms of U.P. Provisional Guard/Development Cops Rules, 1948 as amended in the year 2016 as PRD Jawan which is not a regular employment akin to a Government Servant and further there is no appointment order issued and bearing in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Jalaj Singh, Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Janmejay Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) mind the circular dated 10.11.2023 the writ petitioner is not being allowed to perform duties. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 7. Apparently, the writ petitioner claims to be a PRD Jawan who in the wake of pendency of two criminal cases is not being allowed to perform duty. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as to what is the nature of the appointment, the answer to the same is it is the engagement in the nature of volunteer. The writ petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Moreso, the circular dated 10.11.2023 itself empowers the appointing authority not to engage or continue the engagement of those volunteers who are entangled in criminal cases. In absence of any legal right to continue the engagement, this Court under Article 226 cannot issue a blanket direction de hors the circular issued by the respondents themselves. 8. Accordingly, no good ground is made, the writ petition is dismissed. March 19, 2026 Rajesh WRIA No. 6263 of 2024 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad