The petitioner seeks reinstatement/reemployment on the post of Home Guard with the assertion that he had worked on the post of Homeguard for a period of more than eight years. The petitioner had been discharged from the service by the order dated 23.3.2008 on the ground that he had remained absent from his duty for a period of more than one year and thus became Nishkriye (dead wood).
It is admitted fact of the matter that the order dated 23.2.2008 had not been challenged by the petitioner rather he kept on moving representation that he could not work on account of being ill for a longtime. The representation dated 23.6.2008 and 21.1.2009 have been appended to the writ petition.
It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the circular dated 2.11.2007 issued by the Commandant, Home Guard, Head Office U.P Lucknow provides that all efforts shall be made to revive the services of the Home Guards who had been dismissed on the ground of being dead wood. Submission, thus, is that the representations moved for reinstatement/re-employment in service have not been given due consideration, specially in view of the para '5' of the aforesaid circular. The challenge to the order of dismissal dated 23.2.2008 is based on the above ground.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noticed that the order dated 23.2.2008 by which the petitioner was discharged from the duty records that the petitioner remained absent for a period of more than one year. The vague assertion in the representations that the petitioner remained ill for a period of one year cannot be taken as a ground to set aside the same.
As far as the order dated 13.6.2020 is concerned whereby the application of the petitioner for reemployment/reinstatement has been rejected, it is noteworthy that the said order categorically records that the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement is not in accordance with the requirements of the Government Order dated 27.6.2017. The petitioner was informed of the order of rejection of his claim for reinstatement by the Head office on 20.6.2017. The copy of the said order had further been sent to the petitioner along with the communication dated 13.6.2020. There is no challenge to the aforesaid decision which was communicated to the petitioner by the office letter dated 15.7.2017. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner does not possess minimum requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Home Guard.
In such a situation, there is no reason to take any exception to the decision taken by the respondent. The challenge to the order dated 13.6.2020, therefore, cannot be sustained.
The writ petition is found devoid of merit and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Harshita