HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 4675 of 2024 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 16.04.2024 whereby petitioner's representation for being engaged as a volunteer in the Prantiya Rakshak Dal has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted that petitioner was initially engaged as a volunteer with the PRD in the year 2010 after providing training to petitioner but was subsequently disengaged in the year 2019. He has adverted to the impugned order to submit that petitioner's representation has been rejected only on the ground that his name has not been uploaded with data on the portal available with the opposite parties. 4. Learned counsel submits that it is in fact not being denied by opposite parties that petitioner was initially engaged in the year 2010 as a volunteer with the PRD and there is no complaint against him and there was no occasion for the opposite parties to disengage him from service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of similarly situated persons, this Court has passed the order dated 7.10.2021 in Service Single No.12261 of 2021, Kapil Dev Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others. Against the said judgement and order dated 7.10.2021, the State filed Special Appeal No.131 of 2022, which was dismissed vide Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Anil Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Stat Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) order dated 5.4.2022. 6. It is further submitted that the similar matter has been decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions leading one was Writ A No. 4170 of 2022. 7. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submissions that even as per admission of the petitioner, he was disengaged from service in the year 2019 and now there is no occasion for petitioner to reengage in service. It is submitted that the aspect of petitioner's conduct would require to be examined by authority concerned. 8. For the sake of convenience, the operative part of the judgement and order dated 7.10.2021 passed by this Court in Service Single No.12261 of 2021 (supra) is reproduced as under:- "Considering the fact that the petitioner has rendered 7 years of long services with Prantiya Rakshak Dal and his work and conduct was not found unsatisfactory at any point of time and no complain whatsoever, was received against him, at this stage, dispensing with his service, would be inequitable. Even, if the petitioner has not been able to produce his training certificate, since he has rendered 9 years long services with the department, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to give the duty to the petitioner if there is work and pay him honorarium as is being paid to the other members of Prantiya Rakshak Dal. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is finally disposed of." 9. Upon consideration of the aforesaid aspects, it appears that petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment and orders indicated hereinabove. 10. In view thereof, present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of order dated 07.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 12261(S/S) of 2021 without interfering with the order impugned. September 3, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 4675 of 2024 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench