Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010258092023 2025:GAU-AS:8279 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7083/2023 SANJOY DAS AND 5 ORS S/O- LT. MANIK CH. DAS, R/O- NEW KALIBARI, P.O. TEZPUR, P.S. TEZPUR, DISTRICT- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001 2: BHASKAR BORAH S/O- SRI RATNESWAR BORAH VILLAGE- MAGURMARI P.O. SOOTEA P.S. SOOTEA DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784175 3: JAGAT SAIKIA S/O- LT. UMA RAM SAIKIA R/O- BURHACHUKGAON P.O.- SOOTEA P.S. SOOTEA DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784175 4: JONI DAS @ JANI DAS S/O- LT. ANIL DAS VILLAGE- DARAKIALGAON P.O. TEZPUR P.S. TEZPUR DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 5: PANKAJ BORAH S/O- LT. KAMALESHWAR BORAH VILLAGE- JALUKBARI Page No.# 2/5 P.O. BRAHMAJAN P.S. GOHPUR DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784172 6: CHITRA NARAYAN BORUAH S/O- LT. BHOLA BORUAH VILLAGE- BALIJAN P.O.- BALIJAN P.S. GOHPUR DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 78417 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTER ULUBARI PIN- 781007 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CIVIL DEFENSE AND GENERAL COMMANDANT HOME GUARDS ASSAM BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 781028 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:DISTRICT HOME GUARDS COMMANDANTS SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 Page No.# 3/5 6:DURGA PRASAD BORDOLOI THE THEN COMMANDANT OF SONITPUR DISTRICT SON OF SRI DAMBARUDHAR SARMA BORDOLOI RESIDENT OF KALIABOR TINIALI P.O. KUWARITOL DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAMUAH, MRS. K BARPUZARI,MR. C DAS,MR. A R KASHYAP,MR. J KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. N HAQUE(R-6),MR. A K AZAD (R-6),MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY(R-6),MR. N G KUNDU(R-6) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20-06-2025 Heard Ms. K. Barpuzari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well as Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for directions to the respondent authorities to recognize that they had indeed undergone the “Rural Basic Home Guards Volunteer Training Course” from 28.02.2011 to 30.04.2011 in two training centers at Tezpur under District Commandant, Home Guards, Sonitpur and thereafter assign to them suitable duties. 3. The claim of the petitioners that they had undergone the aforesaid basic training has been disputed by the State Authorities, contending that the training programme in question was only for 460 Home Guard Volunteers and name of the petitioners did not figure in the list of candidates who had successfully undergone Page No.# 4/5 training. It has been also alleged that the Commandant had unauthorisedly exceeded the number of trainees to 600. 4. Since the name of the petitioners did not figure amongst the 460 candidates who had successfully completed the training, the authorities do not consider the petitioners to have undergone the basic training course. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners had been assigned various duties during the training period and as such merely because of certain irregularities were committed by the respondent authorities, they cannot made to suffer. 6. There is dispute as to whether the petitioners had actually undergone training as claimed by them as the State Authority has denied the same. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners herein are desirous of undergoing basic training course for two months again. 8. It is to be noticed that a coordinate Bench of this Court had, vide an order dated 30.10.2018, passed in WP(C) 2089/2012, directed the respondent authorities to ensure arrangement for two months basis training for the petitioners, therein, at the earliest, preferably within six months from the date of the order. 9. Considering the said direction issued vide order dated 30.10.2018, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein also deserves a consideration to be allowed to undergo the Rural Basic Home Guards Volunteer Training Course under the respondent authorities. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit individual representations before the respondent No. 3 herein, i.e. Director General, Civil Defence and General Commandant, Home Guards, Assam, disclosing therein that they are desirous of undergoing the Rural Basic Home Guards Volunteer Training Course for a specified duration. The respondent No. 3, on receipt of such representations from the Page No.# 5/5 petitioners, shall examine the eligibility and suitability of the petitioners for undergoing such training and in the event the petitioners are found to be eligible and suitable for undergoing such training, shall take appropriate steps for inclusion of the names of the petitioners herein as trainees and facilitate the petitioners to undergo such training, which such training is scheduled at the designated training centre. However, in the event the petitioners, or any of the petitioners, are found ineligible or unsuitable for undergoing such training, the respondent No. 3 shall record the reasons for declaring such petitioners ineligible or unsuitable for training in the form of a speaking order and intimate the same to each of the petitioners individually. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant