HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) THE writ petitioners were appointed as Home Guards in A & N Islands Home Guard Organization on diverse dates and have jointly filed the instant writ petition challenging the notification dated 11.10.2011 issued by the Assistant Secretary (Home), A & N Administration, Port Blair, wherein the eligibility criteria are that the Home Guard Volunteers of the said Organization must render five years of continuous service without any break and should be in active service as on 06.5.2009.
(2.) IT is pertinent to be recorded before proceeding to deal with the matter that none of the petitioners are in active service at the time of moving the instant writ petition. A & N Islands Home Guards Regulation, 1964 was promulgated in exercise of the power conferred by Clause-I of Article 240 of the Constitution of India. The object behind the promulgation of the said Regulation is to provide the protection of person, security of property and for the larger interest of public safety. Regulation 5 thereof provides the tenure for such service as may be prescribed. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 16 of the A and N Islands Home Guards Regulation, 1964, the A & N Islands Home Guards Rules, 1965 was framed. The eligibility criteria enshrined in Rule 3 thereof are that the candidate must attain the age of 18 years but has not completed the age of 50 years and should have at least passed the IVth standard examination. Rule 8 of the said Rules postulates the term of office of the member of the Home Guards to be three years and are eligible for re- appointment under the second proviso thereof. Although the term of office under the said Rules is three years, but the Administration allowed certain persons to continue to render their services for more than one decade or so. Two Tribunal applications were taken out by two groups of such Home Guard Volunteers, who rendered the service for more than a decade, before the Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No.122/AN/99 and O.A. No.28/AN/2002. The bone of contention in the aforesaid Tribunal applications was two-fold. Firstly, they should be provided pay parity on the principle of equal pay for equal work and secondly because of their long services their appointment should be regularized. The Tribunal disposed of both the applications by passing a common order dated 16.9.2002 by directing the respondent no.1 to frame a scheme regarding the regularization/absorption/appointment of the person like the applicants therein in consultation with the A & N Islands' Administration. The said order was assailed by filing Writ Petitions before this Court being WPCT No.73 of 2003 and WPCT No.158 of 2003. The Division Bench disposed of both the Writ Petitions on 16.12.2003 by treating the same as original writ petitions after making a finding that the Home Guards are not engaged in service to a civil post under the Union. Ultimately, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the ultimate decision of the Tribunal. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order was dismissed summarily.
(3.) .In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Home Guards(Regularization/Absorption/Appointment) Scheme of A & N Administration, 2005 was framed and duly notified on 5th April, 2005. By the said notification, the A & N Administration decided to fill up 20% of the vacancies occurring in any year (including the existing vacancies) in all the posts in Group-D under A & N Administration and in the post of Constable in Group-C under the A & N Police Department for the Home Guards who are presently enrolled and have rendered at least five years of continuous service or more. Challenging the aforesaid Scheme a writ petition was taken out being W.P. No.195 of 2005 before this Court. The main thrust of challenge in the said writ petition was that the Administration cannot regularize the services of the Home Guard Volunteers in phasewise manner but should have been done at a time. The petitioners relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court delivered in case of State of West Bengal v. Pantha Chatterjee & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 469, where the regularization in phasewise manner was turned down. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and the said order was assailed by filing an intra court appeal being MAT No.25 of 2006. The Division Bench ultimately found that the said scheme was not framed in conformity with the direction of the earlier Division Bench and ultimately quashed and set aside the same. While quashing and setting aside the said scheme, the Division Bench expressly observed that the eligibility criteria enshrined therein are not unreasonable and ultimately directed the Administration to find out the ways and means for absorption/regularization of the eligible persons and/or similarly placed persons in terms of the order of the Division Bench, if necessary, by creating a supernumerary post so that 100% absorption/regularization can be made at one time. The Special Leave Petition though initially admitted was ultimately disposed of by maintaining the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court.;