JUDGMENT Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. - The appeal and the stay application have been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 9th October, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition preferred by 43 candidates who were working as Civic Volunteers in the District of Murshidabad. In the writ petition appellants/petitioners made a grievance that from the month of June 2014 they were not assigned any duty and their service was discontinued thereafter on filing the writ petition appellants/petitioners, inter alia, made claim that they should be permitted to continue their assignment as Civic Volunteers with necessary direction for payment of regular salaries along with arrears. However, the prayer of the of the appellants/petitioners was spurned by the learned Single Judge by delivering impugned judgment dated 9th October 2018 whereby giving detailed reasons the writ petition was dismissed. 2. The case which has been made out in the writ petition by the appellants/petitioners is that they were appointed as Civic Volunteers on and from 11th October, 2013 and they discharged their duty to the satisfaction of the district police authorities. From the month of June 2014 appellants/petitioners were not allotted any duty and verbally they were informed upon approach being made by them to the concerned respondent authorities that they participated in agitation on Rani Rashmoni Road in the month of July 2014 which prompted the authority concerned to discontinue them as Civic Volunteers. The appellants/petitioners made a representation vide a letter dated 25th January, 2017 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad, Berhampore ventilating their grievances and requested the respondent authorities to permit them to continue their assignment as Civic Volunteers in the district of Murshidabad. However, such representation made by the appellants/petitioners did not yield any result. In the writ petition petitioners run a case that they did not participate in the agitation held on Rani Rashmoni Road in Kolkata so the demobilisation by the concerned respondent authorities resulting in discontinuation of their service was improper and prior to demobilising them the authorities ought to have initiated a proceeding against the appellants/petitioners in accordance with law providing them opportunity to defend their case. Absence of due notice prior to such demobilisation renders the action of the respondent authorities in discontinuing their service is liable to be interfered with by the Hon'ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the point of violation of natural justice. 3. The prayer couched in the writ petition reads: "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, their men and agents and associates, servants and/or each of them not to give order directing the respondents not to give any effect dated 14.7.2014 and to allow the petitioners to join their duties as Civic Volunteers in respect of Lalgola Police Station and to release the regular salary of the petitioners month by month as also to release the arrear salaries to till date alongwith interest thereto within a stipulated period. b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus by commanding the respondents, more particularly the respondent nos.2 being the Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad, District- Murshidabad, to allow the petitioners to join their respective posts of Civic Volunteers and to release regular salary as well as the arrears along with interest within a stipulated period. c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 28.1.2017 which is being Annexure - "P-1" to this application within a stipulated period." 4. While defending the action taken by the respondent authorities by filing the affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition before the learned Single Judge it has been stated that vide Memo No. 263(45)-Org./Org.-147/2011 dated 1st March, 2013 the Special Inspector General of Police (HQ), West Bengal intimated to all the Superintendents of Police of the districts throughout the State of West Bengal for deployment of 1,30,000 (One Lakh Thirty Thousand Only) Civic Volunteers throughout the State of West Bengal and such deployment would be made as per the list annexed to the said memo dated 1st March, 2013 indicating district/Commissionerate-wise allotment for such deployment. It has also been directed by the Special Inspector General of Police (HQ), West Bengal that deployment would be made in terms of the guidelines for eligibility, mode of induction, training, duties, termination of voluntary services, etc. for Civic Police Volunteer Force as issued vide G.O. No. 4129- PL/PB/3P-29/11 dated 26th September, 2011. 5. It has also been directed by the Special Inspector General of Police (HQ), West Bengal that deployment would be made in terms of the guidelines for eligibility, mode of induction, training, duties, termination of voluntary services, etc. for Civic Police Volunteer Force as issued vide G.O. No. 4129- PL/PB/3P-29/11 dated 26th September, 2011. 5. In determining the issue involved in this appeal we find it apposite to quote Clause A (4) and Clause D of the said government order dated 26th September, 2011 containing guidelines for deployment of Civic Police Volunteer. Clause A (4) and Clause D are quoted below: "A. The eligibility & mode of Induction of such Civic Police Volunteer force will be as follows: 4. The selected volunteers from the first panel will be deployed for 6 months & then be replaced by the volunteers selected in next panel for next 6 months with usual break. D. Termination of voluntary service The volunteer will be ineligible for continuing in the service on following reasons: 1. Involvement in any criminal case. 2. Display of political partisan behaviour. 3. Complaints of corruption/extortion. 4. Leaving his residential address from the area concerned. 5. Leaving place of duty without permission. 6. Incapacitated or medically ineligible. 7. Completion of six months from the date of induction on usual break. 8. Any other reasonable cause to be determined by Head of unit." 6. Pursuant to the said Memo No. 263(45)-Org/Org-147/2011 issued by the Special Inspector General of Police (HQ), West Bengal the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district issued order being Org. No. 474 (52)/RO dated 5th March, 2013 for deployment of Civic Police Volunteers in the district for each Gram Panchayat under the jurisdiction of respective police station to assist the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. The heads of all the police stations of the district were directed by the said order dated 5th March, 2013 to circulate, advertise and hang on the notice board the notice relating to deployment of Civic Police Volunteer indicating method, criteria, eligibility, wage rates, admissibility of facilities available to the Civic Police Volunteer. 7. The heads of all the police stations of the district were directed by the said order dated 5th March, 2013 to circulate, advertise and hang on the notice board the notice relating to deployment of Civic Police Volunteer indicating method, criteria, eligibility, wage rates, admissibility of facilities available to the Civic Police Volunteer. 7. On perusal of this order dated 5th March, 2013 issued by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district it appears that it was specifically intimated to the candidates desirous to be deployed as Civic Police Volunteer that the candidates from first panel will be deployed for 6 months and then be replaced by the volunteers selected in next panel for next 6 months with usual break. The selected Civic Police Volunteers would have no claim as to the employability in police or any other department of government of such engagement. Each such volunteer will be paid honorarium @ Rs.141.81/- (Rupees One Hundred Forty One & Eighty One Paise) per day after furnishing working statement to be certified by OC of the police station/IC of the police station or the Traffic Guard (T.G.) where deployed. The order dated 5th March, 2013 also contains clause relating to termination of voluntary service. Under such clause of termination it has specifically been provided that on each ground the volunteer would be ineligible for continuing in the service, thereby eight reasons are provided for termination of volunteer under the heading "Termination of voluntary service". 8. The decision to deploy 1,30,000 number of Civic Police Volunteers in the State of West Bengal was taken based on proposal forwarded by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home Department forwarded to the Director General & Inspector General of Police, West Bengal vide Memo No. 752-PL/PB/3P-31/12 dated 28th February, 2013. Paragraph 3 of the said memo dated 28th February, 2013 states that the Governor was pleased to approve the proposal for enrolment of 1,30,000 number of Civic Police Volunteers in West Bengal Police required for need based deployment as and when necessary by the Superintendents of Police of the respective districts and Commissioners of Police of the Police Commissionerates under West Bengal Police after the completion of 10 days' training with the honorarium per Civic Police Volunteer per day @ Rs.141.81/-. 9. 9. It has further been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the concerned respondent authorities that pursuant to the memo dated 28th February, 2013 and memo dated 1st March, 2013 based on which deployment notice dated 5th March, 2013 was issued by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district, appellants/petitioners were selected as per the guidelines as contained in G.O. dated 26th September, 2011 provisionally as Civic Police Volunteer in the Gram Panchayat under Lalgola Police Station in the district of Murshidabad temporarily on contractual basis. Appellants/petitioners were paid honorarium @ Rs.141.81/- per day for 6 months when they were deployed as Civic Police Volunteers. It was also indicated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the appellants/petitioners were deployed with effect from 11th October, 2013. 10. In a letter dated 15th February, 2017 of Officer-in-Charge Lalgola Police Station, Murshidabad addressed to the Superintendent of Police of the district it was intimated that after 14th July, 2014 the appellants/petitioners were not assigned any duty since they participated in the agitation held on 14th July, 2014 on Rani Rashmoni Road, Kolkata against the government. It was also indicated in the said letter dated 15th February, 2017 that the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district dismissed the petitioners from service. We have also come across a report dated 17th July, 2014 issued by the Officer-inCharge of Lalgola Police Station addressed to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district that during deployment the appellants/petitioners being Civic Police Volunteers were found to be indisciplined and there was an allegation of showing obnoxious gesture and posture to the police officers and they leaked secret information of the department of police and the same were made public. 11. While dealing with the case made out in the affidavit-in-opposition the appellants/petitioners in their reply used before the learned Single Judge denied the allegation of misconduct levelled against them as contained in the reports dated 17th July, 2014 and 15th February, 2017 in support of their prayer made in the writ petition for permitting them to continue in their assignment as Civic Police Volunteers coupled with the assertion made by them on violation of principle of natural justice since no opportunity was given to the appellants/petitioners to defend their case before the concerned respondent authorities prior to taking decision by them to discontinue the appellants by issuing proper notice. 12. We have heard extensively Mr. 12. We have heard extensively Mr. Pijush Chaturvedi, learned Advocate representing the appellants/petitioners and main plank of his submission is based on violation of principle of natural justice resulting in dismissal of service of the appellants/petitioners from the post of Civic Police Volunteers. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners has made the submission that appellants ought to be treated as probationers considering the nature of their engagement on the post of Civic Police Volunteers requiring initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceedings against them prior to the impugned order of dismissal resulting in discontinuation in their service. It has further been contended on behalf of the appellants/petitioners since their service has been discontinued based on a report dated 17th July, 2014 prepared by the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station which contains allegation of indisciplined behaviour on the part of the appellants and leaking out confidential information to the public at large; attaching stigma to the service of the appellants/petitioners while they were deployed as Civic Police Volunteers warranting initiation of appropriate proceedings preceding decision to dismiss them from the post of Civic Police Volunteers. In support of the case of the appellants/petitioners reliance has been placed on the judgments reported in ( Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. And Others, 2000 5 SCC 152 ), ( Mathew P. Thomas Vs. Kerela State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. & Ors., 2003 AIR(SC) 1789 ), unreported judgment dated 9th January, 2020 in WP (C) No. 1363/2019 (Smt. Lipika Pual Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.) delivered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Tripura High Court at Agartala Akil Kureshi and another unreported judgment dated 19th January, 2016 in WP 460 (w) of 2016 (Rajesh Chowdhury and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others) delivered by the Hon'ble Justice Sanjib Banerjee. 13. Appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents Mr. Mazumdar, learned Government Pleader submits that the appellants/petitioners were deployed as Civic Police Volunteers on temporary basis against daily wage @ Rs.141.81/- per day. In order to demonstrate temporary nature of employment of the appellants before us the learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the deployment notice issued under order dated 5th March, 2013 in terms of the Government Order dated 26th September, 2011 containing guidelines for such deployment. In order to demonstrate temporary nature of employment of the appellants before us the learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the deployment notice issued under order dated 5th March, 2013 in terms of the Government Order dated 26th September, 2011 containing guidelines for such deployment. It has been brought to our notice from the relevant parts of the deployment notice dated 5th March, 2013 as well as the Government Order dated 26th September, 2011 that the appellants/petitioners were selected as Civic Police Volunteers on the terms that such volunteers from the first panel will be deployed for 6 months and then be replaced by the volunteers selected in next panel for the next 6 months with usual break. Therefore, no permanancy is attached to the employment offered to the appellants/petitioners as it appears from relevant parts of the said deployment notice dated 5th March, 2013 and guidelines issued under G.O. dated 26th September, 2011, relevant parts of which have already been quoted above. Clause D of G.O. dated 26th September, 2011 contains grounds based on which Civic Police Volunteers can be terminated. The said clause does not contain any provisions which require concerned authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings preceding dismissal of Civic Volunteers from their engagement. It is further submitted on behalf of the contesting respondent that the conditions of engagement of Civic Volunteer as contained in the form of guidelines in the G.O. dated 26th September, 2011 were made known to the appellants/petitioners vide issuing deployment notice dated 5th March, 2013 whereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates for being selected as Civic Police Volunteers in the concerned district. Therefore, it is argued on behalf of the respondents that before discontinuing the appellants/petitioners as Civic Police Volunteers the respondent authorities are not required to initiate formal proceedings for offering opportunities to the appellants/petitioners to present their case before the authorities concerned. By referring to the relevant paragraphs of writ petition and affidavit-in-reply used on behalf of the appellants/petitioners before the learned Single Judge submission has been made that appellants/petitioners did not run a case of probationers which would attract the principle of natural justice in the case of attachment of stigma to the service rendered by the appellants/petitioners while terminating their service. In support of the contention made on behalf of the contesting respondents reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in ( Jiban Krishna Mondal And Others Vs. State of West Bengal And Others, 2015 12 SCC 74 ) and another judgment reported in ( Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal And Others Vs. Dattatraya Rupa Pagar And Others, 2012 13 SCC 534 ). 14. Taking a cue from the submission made on behalf of the contesting respondents we have perused to find out whether any statement has been made in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit-in-reply which corroborates the submission made on behalf of the appellants/petitioners that they are required to be considered as probationers and before terminating their service the concerned authority is under obligation to initiate proceedings for granting them opportunity to defend their case in the event of attaching stigma to the performance of the appellants/petitioners while deployed as Civic Police Volunteers. We are unable to find out any assertion made by the appellants/petitioners in their writ petition or in affidavit-in-reply declaring themselves as probationers. On the contrary the deployment notice dated 5th March, 2013 (Annexure - R to the affidavit-in-opposition used before the learned Single Judge, page 85 and 86 of the stay application) which was issued by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district demonstrates the nature of engagement as per the guidelines contained in Government Order dated 26th September, 2011, does not suggest that the deployment of Civic Police Volunteers to be made upon treating the appellants/petitioners as probationers. One of the main features of appointment on probation is on a successful completion of probationary period the appointee becomes permanent on the post against which he is appointed. In case of a probationer the appointee is given an opportunity to be treated as permanent staff upon successful completion of the period of probation. This salient feature of appointment on probation is conspicuously absent as it emanates from the notice of deployment dated 5th March, 2013 issued under order being Org. No. 474 (52)/RO. In case of a probationer the appointee is given an opportunity to be treated as permanent staff upon successful completion of the period of probation. This salient feature of appointment on probation is conspicuously absent as it emanates from the notice of deployment dated 5th March, 2013 issued under order being Org. No. 474 (52)/RO. Therefore, considering the conditions attached to the engagement of the appellants/petitioners as Civic Police Volunteers it can be inferred that they were not appointed as probationers which would give them opportunity to become permanent member of the police force rather the engagement of the appellants/petitioners in terms of the deployment notice dated 5th March 2013 goes to show this was temporary deployment for 6 months after which the appellants/petitioners were to be replaced by another batch of volunteers selected from the next panel for next 6 months with usual break. The deployment of the appellants/petitioners was made with the condition that they would have no claim as to the employability in police or any other department of the government. Appellants/petitioners were appointed on a daily wage @ Rs. 141.81/- per day release of which depends upon furnishing working statement by the concerned authorities. The conditions which we have narrated above clearly demonstrate that the deployment of appellants/petitioners as Civic Police Volunteers was temporary in nature and it cannot be considered as an engagement on probation. 15. In the judgment of the Apex Court reported in ( Jiban Krishna Mondal And Others Vs. State of West Bengal And Others, 2015 12 SCC 74 ) the Supreme Court while answering the question whether appellants and other members of the West Bengal Home Guards are in services of the State and whether they are entitled for regularisation of their services or any other relief in paragraph 26 and 27 upon considering the judgments reported in ( Rajesh Mishra Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2002 98 DLT 624 and ( State of Manipur Vs. Moirangninthou Singh, 2007 10 SCC 544 ), held that the appointment letters of the Home Guards do not suggest that they are performing duty all over the year like in government service and they were appointed pursuant to the Home Guard Rules, 1962 and it is made clear that their services are voluntary and will not get any pay but the duty allowance as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time. Paragraphs 26, 27 and 29 of Jiban Krishna Mondal (supra) are quoted below: "26. In Rajesh Mishra v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), the High Court speaking through S.B. Sinha, J. held that that the Home Guards are a voluntary organisation and there is no masterservant relationship between the Government and Home Guards. It was held that they are not civil servants and they cannot move before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. 27. In State of Manipur v. Moirangninthou Singh, this Court reiterated the voluntary nature of service of members of Home Guard and held: (SCC pp. 546-47, paras 8, 11 & 13) "8. It may be noted that Home Guards have been constituted as a voluntary organisation for service in emergencies and hence it cannot be treated on a par with other organisations like the army, paramilitary organisations or the civil police. 11. A perusal of the provisions of the Home Guards Act and the Rules show that the Home Guards was meant to be a reserve force which was to be utilized in emergencies, but it was not a service like the police, paramilitary force or army, and there is no right in a member to continue till the age of 55 years. We approve the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Mishra v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) 13. The concept of Home Guards was of a voluntary citizen force as auxiliary to the police for maintaining law and order and for meeting emergencies like floods, fires, famine, etc. and for civil defence." 29. Majority of the appellants have attained the maximum age and are no more members of the Home Guards. The appointment letters enclosed by the remaining category of the appellants do not suggest that they are performing duty all over the year like any government servant. There is nothing on the record to suggest the master-servant relationship. They were appointed pursuant to the Home Guards Rules, 1962 and it is made clear that their services are voluntary and will not get any pay but the duty allowance as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time." 16. There is nothing on the record to suggest the master-servant relationship. They were appointed pursuant to the Home Guards Rules, 1962 and it is made clear that their services are voluntary and will not get any pay but the duty allowance as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time." 16. Taking note of the submission made on behalf of the appellants/petitioners that they were required to be treated as probationers which cast an obligation upon concerned authority to initiate proceedings against them before terminating the engagement of the appellants/petitioners since certain allegations were made against them as it appears from the report dated 17th July, 2014; reliance is placed on Chhatrapati Shivaji (Supra), paragraph 7 and 9 are quoted below: "7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was ex facie erroneous and the High Court committed serious error by refusing to quash the same. A reading of the terms and conditions embodied in the letter dated 3-9-2002 issued by the Chairman of Appellant 1 shows that Respondent 1 was appointed for a fixed period with a clear stipulation that he will not be treated on a par with regular teachers or government employees and after completing three years' satisfactory service as Shikshan Sevak, he will be eligible for appointment as teacher in the prescribed pay scale and the service already rendered by him will be considered for post-retiral benefits. It is neither the pleaded case of Respondent 1 nor has any document been produced before this Court to show that Respondent 1 had been appointed as a teacher after regular selection and he was appointed on probation. Therefore, the Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that Respondent 1 had been appointed on probation and on completion of three years, he will be deemed to have been confirmed. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that Respondent 1 had been appointed on probation and on completion of three years, he will be deemed to have been confirmed. 9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who decided the writ petition filed by the appellants did not even advert to the issues raised therein and dismissed the same and that too without taking cognizance of the fact that Respondent 1 had been appointed as Shikshan Sevak for fixed period and he was never appointed as a teacher on probation so as to justify a conclusion by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal that on completion of three years' period of probation he stood confirmed." 17. Borrowing inspiration from paragraphs 7 and 9 of Chhatrapati Shivaji (Supra) again we state at the cost of repetition that the appellants/petitioners never made out a case before the learned Single Judge that they were appointed on probation. Therefore, question of grant of opportunity as sought for by the appellants/petitioners upon treating them as probationers prior to terminating their engagement may not arise. 18. In the judgments in Chandra Prakash Shahi (Supra) as well as Mathew P. Thomas (Supra) the Apex Court enunciated the law relating to the service condition of probationer. We are afraid that since we have already held that the appellants/petitioners were not appointed as probationers the ratio of these two judgments does not apply in the case at our hand. 19. In the case of Smt. Lipika Pual (Supra) the learned Single Judge examined the question whether the suspension order as well as charge-sheet issued against the petitioner can survive in the fact situation where the petitioner was proceeded against on the allegation of her participation in political rally at the fag end of her tenure after discharging duty for more than 38 years just prior to her retirement. The Hon'ble Court considering the relevant provisions of the service rule applicable in case of the petitioner and on considering all the relevant facts set aside the memorandum of charge-sheet as well as suspension order. The facts of the case as elaborated in the said judgment dated 9th January, 2020 is completely different therefore, the ratio of the judgment does not apply in the present case. 20. The facts of the case as elaborated in the said judgment dated 9th January, 2020 is completely different therefore, the ratio of the judgment does not apply in the present case. 20. We are also tasked to consider the unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. 460 (w) of 2016 in Rajesh Chowdhury (Supra) where the Hon'ble Court set-aside the order of demobilisation with effect from 19th February, 2015 which was passed against the petitioners on the score that petitioners were not afforded any opportunity. On perusal of the said judgment dated 19th January, 2016 it does not appear that the guidelines as contained in Government Order dated 26th September, 2011 prescribing eligibility, mode of induction, training, duties, termination of voluntary services, etc. for Civic Police Volunteer Force, were placed before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the court in Rajesh Chowdhury (Supra) perhaps did not have the occasion to examine the nature of engagement offered to Civic Volunteers upon due consideration of the said guidelines. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jiban Krishna Mondal (Supra) perhaps was not placed before the Court while deciding the writ petition being W.P. 460 (w) of 2016 wherein the Supreme Court declared while deciding the right of Home Guards under West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1962 that there is no master-servant relation between the Government and Home Guards and the service rendered by Home Guards is voluntary in nature. 21. If reliance is placed on the deployment notice dated 5th March, 2013 which was issued taking note of the guidelines relating to engagement of Civic Police Volunteers as contained in Government Order dated 26th September, 2011 the submission made on behalf of the appellants/petitioners that they are required to be treated as probationers pales into insignificance. The appellants/petitioners as it appears from records were deployed as Civic Police Volunteers on temporary basis against daily wage @ Rs. 141.81/- that too for a period of 6 months and thereafter another batch of candidates was to replace the appellants/petitioners, goes to show that there was no master-servant relationship in between the appellants/petitioners and the contesting respondents. The appellants/petitioners as it appears from records were deployed as Civic Police Volunteers on temporary basis against daily wage @ Rs. 141.81/- that too for a period of 6 months and thereafter another batch of candidates was to replace the appellants/petitioners, goes to show that there was no master-servant relationship in between the appellants/petitioners and the contesting respondents. Therefore, the appellants/petitioners do not have any right to get the benefit of opportunity to defend themselves in the event of their termination by the concerned respondent authorities and as such we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge and the same is affirmed. The appeal and the stay application stand dismissed. 22. The appeal is treated as on day's list and disposed of along with the stay application by the common order with the consent of the parties. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of the judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.