JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh for the petitioners and Sri Nripendra Misra for respondents 3 and 4.
2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the respondent-Bank.
3. The petitioners are Home Guards. They were deputed to work as Guards in various branches of the respondent-Bank on 31.121999 by the District Commandant (Home Guards), Jalaun at Orai alongwith other Home Guards. The District Commandant (Home Guards), Jalaun at Orai by order dated 23.10.2000 called them back from duty in the respondent-Bank, but they did not report back to their department as they were not relieved by the respondent-Bank and continued to work there. In the mean time an advertisement had been issued in the newspapers on 28.1.2005 for appointment of 12 Class IV employees in the Bank.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been absorbed in the service of the Bank in spite of "working for a long period in the Bank and have now been directed by the Bank to return back to the office of the District Commandant (Home Guards), Jalaun at Orai vide impugned order dated 11.8.2005.
5. Admittedly the petitioners are employees of the Home Guards Department and not that of the respondent-Bank. After the District Commandant (Home Guards), Jalaun at Orai had called them back from the duties of the respondent-Bank, they ought to have reported for duty to the department but they did not do so for the reasons best known to them. They ought to have complied with the orders of the District Commandant (Home Guards), Jalaun at Orai being members of a disciplined force.
6. Only an employee engaged directly by the employer working in his establishment can claim for absorption in that establishment or department. No other employee except an employee on deputation can claim for absorption in accordance with rules.
7. Admittedly the petitioners are not the employees of the Bank and there is no such rule for absorption of such employees in the bank, hence there is no question of their absorption in the Bank. If the petitioners do not want to work in the Home Guards Department, they are free to apply for their appointment as Class IV employees in the Bank provided they are otherwise eligible.
8. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.8.2005. The duty of the petitioners has already been discontinued by the respondent-Bank and their remuneration has also been paid till the date they worked, i.e., 13.8.2005, hence no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution has been made out.
9. No other point has been argued by the parties.
10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.