ORDER : The petitioners are all Home Guards presently drafted for the State Government’s ambitious Pravasi Mitra Programme of the fourth respondent Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation. They claim to have been trained to give safety and protection to the tourists. Their grievance is that they are been replaced by other Home Guards. 2. Sri Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Shilpa Rani for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are trained incurring expenditure of about Rs.3.00 crores. If they are suddenly replaced, it would result in the loss of public money. He submits that the petitioners are all selected by the District Level Committee. He submits that the Pravasi Mitra Scheme does not contemplate the rotation of the Home Guards. On the other hand, no less a person than the concerned Minister, that is the Tourism Minister, has ordered that under no circumstances there should be any replacing of the Home Guards working as Tourist Mitras. He submits that the Government itself has given the Tourist Mitra Certificate to some of the petitioners for successfully completing the induction programme, conducted by the Department. 3. He also brings to my notice the letter, dated 05.10.2016 (Annexure-P) issued by the Director of Tourism Department for continuing the services of the Home Guards in the Pravasi Mitra Scheme, as per the resolution, dated 10.06.2016. 4. Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the Karnataka Home Guards Act, 1962 and the Karnataka Home Guards Rules, 1963 do not provide for the appointment of the Home Guards on permanent basis. They are appointed for a period of three years and that they can be drafted for any particular work or project. What they get is the honorarium of Rs.400/for the days on which they have actually worked. They do not get any fixed salary. They render voluntary services. 5. He submits that some Home Guards have to be continued or replaced by other Home Guards is a matter to be decided by the Home Department and the Tourism Department. He submits that there are 23,000 Home Guards out of which 479 are deputed to the Tourism Development Corporation. He brings to my notice that the Inspector General of Police had stated in the meeting held on 10.06.2016 that the services of the Home Guards working with the Tourism Development Corporation would not be disturbed till December 2016. He submits that there are 23,000 Home Guards out of which 479 are deputed to the Tourism Development Corporation. He brings to my notice that the Inspector General of Police had stated in the meeting held on 10.06.2016 that the services of the Home Guards working with the Tourism Development Corporation would not be disturbed till December 2016. It is on the expiry of the assured period that the changes are being made. 5. Sri M.I.Arun, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 adopts the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General. 7. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The petitioners’ prayers are as follows: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take a decision jointly as the scheme has been sponsored by the Government, Karnataka Department of Tourism and Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation along with State Home Department to continue the services of the petitioners; (b) Further direct the respondents take a decision regarding revision of pay scales and also security of tenure in the cadre of Home Guards as the issue is still pending before the Government. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 8. Prayers (a) and (b) are not at all grantable as no recruitment advertisement/notification is issued calling for the applications from the petitioners, no merit test is conducted and no reservation requirements are adhered to. Therefore it cannot be held that the present arrangement is in keeping with the scheme of public appointments as envisaged in the Constitution of India. Therefore no direction can be given to the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners. No direction can be given to revise their payscales or give security of tenure to the Home Guards. 9. The petitioners do not have any vested right to demand that they be continued to work in the Pravasi Mitra Scheme of the Tourism Department. Whether the work in the Tourism Department is to be given only to the petitioners or to the other Home Guards is also a policy-decision, which the concerned decision-makers have to take. 10. 9. The petitioners do not have any vested right to demand that they be continued to work in the Pravasi Mitra Scheme of the Tourism Department. Whether the work in the Tourism Department is to be given only to the petitioners or to the other Home Guards is also a policy-decision, which the concerned decision-makers have to take. 10. I do not see the infringement of any rights of the petitioners warranting the issuance of the writ of mandamus. 11. There writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed. However, the dismissal of these writ petitions does not mean that their services are not to be continued in Pravasi Mitra Scheme of the Tourism Department. The concerned authorities have to take informed decision by taking into account the requirements of the Tourism Department, the suitability of the Home Guards for the project in question, the availability of other suitable Home Guards for the said Scheme, the need to have the second line of Home Guards for the said Scheme and all other relevant factors. If the serving Home Guards for the said Scheme are to be replaced, they have to be given reasonable time to shift their houses. 11. No order as to costs.