( 2025:HHC:8001 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1590 of 2024 Decided on: March 26 , 2025 Praveen Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondent No. 3 on 03.10.2022 rejected the case of the petitioner for his re-enrollment in Home Guards Organisation, hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the impugned rejection order and seeking relief of re-enlistment/re-enrollment. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Home Guards Organisation on 11.07.2010. He was discharged from the said Organisation on 10.01.2013. CWP No. 5256 of 2022 was instituted by the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:8001 ) 2 seeking his re-enrollment on the strength of the judgment rendered in Inder Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors.2 The said writ petition was decided on 02.08.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of decision render in Inder Singh’s case2. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide office communication dated 03.10.2022 declined to re-enroll him in the Home Guards Organization inter- alia on the ground that an FIR No. 223/20, dated 11.12.2020 was registered against the petitioner under sections 323, 324, 325, 498-A, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that reasons for not re-enrolling the petitioner are factually incorrect. The petitioner had been discharged from the commission of offences in the afore-mentioned FIR, under order dated 27.11.2022 passed by learned National Lok Adalat, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The respondents, in their reply have pleaded that the petitioner was enrolled as volunteer in the Home Guards Organisation on 11.07.2010. On 27.09.2012 he submitted an application (Annexure R-3) to respondent No.3 for discharging him from Home Guards Organisation pleading therein that his mental 2 CWP No. 3628 of 2020, decided on 05.01.2021. ( 2025:HHC:8001 ) 3 state was not good due to which he was unable to perform his duty. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondents on 06.10.2012. Petitioner neither replied to the said show cause notice nor he turned up to present his case to respondent No. 3. Petitioner was accordingly discharged from Home Guards Organisation on 10.01.2013 (Annexure R-5). 4. The Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Rules 1971 prescribe certain conditions for appointment of Home Guards which include (i) a person should not be less than 18 years and not more than 50 years of age and (ii) should also bear good moral character. The Rules further provide the procedure for furnishing certificates of good moral character. This has also been observed in Inder Singh’s case2 , relevant para of which reads as under: “2. Be that as it may, the effects of all the afore may, become undone, rather only for ensuring that since, the writ petitioner, is otherwise, not, declared, in the reply, on affidavit, sworn by the respondent, to be unfit, for performing the apposite duties, nor, is declared therein, to, during the tenure, of, his service as a volunteer in the Home Guards, qua his not performing his duties, with lack of efficiency, and, or his mis-conducting, himself, (i) thereupons, besides when the perusal, of, Annexure P-2, discloses that the persons aspiring to be re-enlisted as volunteer(s) in the Home Guards, are not, to cross the prescribed therein age bar of 50 years, (ii) thereupon, when it is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the writ petitioner has not crossed the apposite age bar, hence, the respondents concerned, are, directed to, subject, to his also meteing compliance with Rule 3, of Annexure P-2, inasmuch as, his being (a) not less than 18 years and not more than 50 years of age, (b) is of good moral character; (c) is physically fit to ( 2025:HHC:8001 ) 4 undergo ardous out-door duties and has been medically examined and found to be of normal health; (d) is at least literate in Hindi; (e) is not wholly engaged in any course of study in any educational institution and has an employment or profession; (f) is not a member of the Territorial Army; (g) takes an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India and to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as laid down in the form of pledge appended to these rules, hence proceed to consider the request of the respondent, for, his re- enrollment, as a volunteer in the Home Guards.” Civil Writ Petition No. 5256 of 2022 instituted by the petitioner was disposed of on 02.08.2022 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of decision in Inder Singh’s case2. This was so ordered in view of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s case was covered by the decision in Inder Singh’s case2. Respondents in their reply have submitted that petitioner had been discharged from Home Guards Organisation on 10.01.2013. The discharge order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968. Petitioner’s discharge from Home Guards Organisation was in view of petitioner’s own application submitted to the respondents on 26.09.2012 to the effect that he be discharged as he was not mentally fit to perform his duty. After following the procedure in accordance with law and after issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner on 06.10.2012, the discharge order was passed on 10.01.2013. ( 2025:HHC:8001 ) 5 5. Taking into consideration the facts outlined by the respondents for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for re- enrollment, the respondents were justified in not re-enrolling the petitioner in the Home Guards Organisation. Petitioner’s case is different from that of Inder Singh’s case2. The petitioner was discharged on 10.01.2013 in view of the prayer made by him in his application dated 26.09.2012 that on account of his mental condition he was not in a position to perform his duty. No other point was urged. For the fore-going reasons there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge March 26 , 2025 (PK)