[2025:RJ-JP:27404] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11078/2020 Prahlad Narayan S/o Shri Hari Mohan Agrawal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 4/211, N.e.b. Housing Board, Behind Mandi, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Commandant, Home Guards Training Centre, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gitesh Joshi Mr. Vageesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 22/07/2025 1. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 2. It appears that petitioner has been discharged from duties as Member of Home Guard w.e.f 20.01.2020, on attaining the age of 55 years vide order dated 26.03.2020 (Annx.4), which has been impugned by petitioner by filing instant writ petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner states that vide office order dated 17.11.2017(Annx.3), petitioner was given extension to render service as Home Guard up to 30.11.2022, but his period of extension has been shortened by and up to 20.01.2020 vide amended order dated 26.03.2020, which is against the law and [2025:RJ-JP:27404] (2 of 2) [CW-11078/2020] warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. This Court finds that under the Rajasthan Home Guards Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules of 1962'), Rule 9 provides upper age limit for a Member of Home Guards is upto the age of 55 years. Though, the proviso appended to Rule 9 provides a clause for relaxation of age limit in reasonable cases, yet such proviso has been deleted vide office order dated 23.04.2020 (Annx.R/2). Perusal of the office order dated 23.04.2020, clearly envisaged that such deletion has been made effective w.e.f. 14.09.2017. 5. In view of above, the order of extension of petitioner over and above to the age of 55 years vide office order dated 17.11.2017(Annx.3), does not confer any legal right upon petitioner to continue as Member of Home Guard, after attaining the age of 55 years, hence reducing the period of extension of petitioner up to the age of 55 years, it means up to 20.01.2020, vide amended order dated 26.03.2020, may not be said to be against the Rules of 1962 and does not call for any interference. 6. 6. In this view of the matter, petitioner's case does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and same is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN-RONAK JAIMAN/263