Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40068 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6561 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arunendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to permit posting of petitioner as Home Guard in the company Hariyawan, District Hardoi. 3. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 4th July, 2025 which are taken on record and as per which, petitioner was initially engaged as a Home Guard on 10th September, 1989 and received training for a period of 14 days till 30th March, 1991 whereafter he did not report for joining due to which his appointment letter was cancelled vide order dated 13th January, 2006. The said order was never challenged by petitioner although as per government order dated 2nd December, 2016, petitioner had an opportunity to raise grievance thereagainst within a period of 60 days. It is submitted that petitioner can not be re-engaged in service since he is over 50 years of age. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has refuted submissions advanced by learned State Counsel with submission that after obtaining training, he was employed and discharged duties as a Home Guard till 2006 but due to political pressure he was not continued due to which he gave various representation which were never decided. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident as admitted by petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that he was initially engaged in the year 1989 and was not continued in service. Even as per admission, although not specifically stated in the petition, petitioner was disengaged from service in the year 2006. There is no cogent explanation given as to why petitioner has approached this Court after almost 20 years of being disengaged from service. There is no rule or regulation appended to the petitioner whereby he has a vested right of being continued in service at this belated stage. 6. The petition therefore being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear there own cost. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench