Judgment : 1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Samiti has submitted that the present petition is filed with the following prayers: “1. By way of a writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof held that the dutywise rotation system adopted by the respondent in the garb of section 4 of the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 is impermissible holding that the term “calling for duties” do does not means a whimsical approach to call a few and debar the others from engagement; and 2. By way of a writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof held that if there are available duties & requisition from the various departments seeking engagement of the home guards on regular basis then the home guards be given duties continuously without any break in the name of rotation or “calling of duties”. 3. By way of a writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof direct and hold that any enrolment of the home guards made pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.01.2023 be not given effect to unless the present strength of the already enrolled home guards is utilized fully and further that the advertisement dated 09.01.2023 thus be quashed and set aside and direct the respondents to refund the amount collected under this advertisement as application fee to the candidates if any so proposed to be enrolled during the pendency of the present writ petition. 4. By way of a writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof direct the respondents to make available in public domain and the website of the Department the total strength of the home guards, UptoDate position of enrolled home guards with their particulars and details, duties and their details assigned to the home guards against their name, and not to lay of for give break to any home guard in the name of rotation in engagement. 5. By way of a writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof direct the respondent to put in place appropriate rules for the recruitment of the voluntary home guards in future and not make any enrolment unless a transparent enrolment mechanism is notified by the respondent State in pursuance to the Act of 1963 like the one made for a person appointed to a post in the service on the basis of regular selection.” 2. It was further contended that the nitty-gritty of the present dispute is that the petitioner herein is a registered society of home-guards of the State of Rajasthan which is working for the welfare of its members. There are as many as 30,714 sanctioned strength of home guards in the State wherein around 28,206 home-guards are enrolled for present and only 10,134 home- guards, as per the latest available records are given duties that too on rotation basis. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner had contended that despite the fact that no regular duties/deployment is granted qua the enrolled home-guards, the respondents have issued the impugned notification dated 09.01.2023, inviting applications for 3,842 vacant posts of home-guards. 4. Consecutively, learned counsel had apprised the Court with the manifold grievances of the petitioner-society/samiti, which are enumerated herein below: 4.1 That the rotation system, as adopted by the respondents with respect to duties and the allotment, is inherently illegal, arbitrary, and untenable in the eyes of the law. In this regard, it was submitted that the rotation or lay-off policy, implemented by the respondents under the guise of "calling out for duty," is legally unsustainable. Withal, the same is assailed on the grounds that the respondent Department has failed to satisfy the requirements for year-round deployment. 4.2 That despite the fact that the existing force members are surplus and the duties required are insufficient for the current strength of the force, the respondents intend to recruit additional personnel, as evidenced by the advertisement dated 09.01.2023, for the appointment of 3,842 Home Guards in the State of Rajasthan. 4.3 That there is a far-reaching lack of transparency in the engagement and rotation process, which is left to the arbitrary discretion of the respondent officials. Nevertheless, such a practice constitutes a source of corruption, as it effectively operates as a "pick and choose" policy under the guise of rotation, thereby undermining fairness and accountability. 4.4 That if new enrollment is permitted, it will further diminish the prospects of deployment for the existing force, resulting in underutilization of the current personnel. This action would be in direct contravention of the Circular dated 05.02.2017 (Annexure - 2), which explicitly mandates the maintenance of 70% regular deployment of Home Guard members, as a prerequisite for the initiation of recruitment of new members. Consequently, the actions of the respondents are dehors their own Circular and are therefore legally unsustainable. This action would be in direct contravention of the Circular dated 05.02.2017 (Annexure - 2), which explicitly mandates the maintenance of 70% regular deployment of Home Guard members, as a prerequisite for the initiation of recruitment of new members. Consequently, the actions of the respondents are dehors their own Circular and are therefore legally unsustainable. 5. In support of the contentions made insofar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had placed reliance upon a catena of judgments, a few amongst others are noted herein as Special Leave Petition No.12858/2009 titled as Grah Rakshak Home Guards Welfare Association Vs. State of HP, Tej Singh & Ors. Vs. Sarvesh Kaushal & Anr.: Contempt Petition No.699- 700/2015; Harishankar Acharya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No.11085/2022, decided by Coordinate Bench of Principal Seat at Jodhpur, vide order dated 27 th January, 2025 . 6. Whilst placing reliance upon the aforementioned dictums learned counsel had consequentially argued that the advertisement dated 09.01.2023, seeking the fresh enrollment of 3,842 Home Guards, ought to be quashed and set aside. Furthermore, it was contended that there exists no established rule, regulation, or systematic framework for the consistent and rational deployment of Home Guards. The actions of the respondents, in this regard, appear to be a reaction to the numerous litigations filed by the Home Guards and their association against the respondents, which further underscores the arbitrary and capricious nature of the respondents' conduct. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Shri Bhuvnesh Vyas had vehemently opposed the contentions noted hereinabove, and had submitted that the petitioner, in the present case, is a society which is bereft of the requisite locus standi to maintain the writ petition. It was further contended that the provisions of Section 1.22 of Chapter (I) of the Home Guard Compendium of Instructions, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Compendium of 2007"), explicitly stipulates that the State Government shall not grant recognition to any society that was registered subsequent to the year 2007. The respondents have further argued that the society in question, being registered post- 2007, fails to fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down under the Compendium of 2007. 8. The respondents have further argued that the society in question, being registered post- 2007, fails to fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down under the Compendium of 2007. 8. Additionally, it was pointed out that the petitioner has not placed on record any resolution, nor provided any details concerning the society, including a list of its members or the necessary documentation, to substantiate that a resolution was passed by a majority of the Home Guard members. The absence of these essential documents renders the writ petition devoid of merit, as the petitioner cannot be considered a recognized or duly constituted entity as per the statutory framework provided under the Compendium of 2007. 9. Consecutively, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had averred that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner does not possess the necessary standing (locus standi) to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The absence of a valid resolution, the deficiency of a clear and verifiable membership list, and non-compliance with the regulatory requirements set forth in Section 1.22 of the Compendium are grounds sufficient to dismiss the petition for want of locus standi. Consequently, the writ petition ought not to be entertained under the prevailing legal and factual circumstances. 10. It was further submitted by the respondents that the nomenclature provided in Annexure-2, which purports to give the status of the petitioner’s request, is based on a letter dated 05.02.2017 which is an internal communication and cannot be considered as an authoritative circular. It was clarified that this internal communication, pertains to the specific circumstances as existed on the said date/at that time, is outdated, misleading, and does not reflect the current factual position. 11. Additionally, even if the internal communication were deemed to be accurate, it can be noted that the affidavit and supporting documentation filed as of the present date, specifically at Annexure P/1, demonstrates that the percentage of deployment undertaken by the respondents is approximately 75% (74.82%) on a focal/average basis throughout the State of Rajasthan. This fact substantiates the respondents' position that the deployment of Home Guard personnel is appropriately managed and that any further deployment, as warranted, should be permitted in accordance with the administrative requirements of the Home Guard Act and Rules. This fact substantiates the respondents' position that the deployment of Home Guard personnel is appropriately managed and that any further deployment, as warranted, should be permitted in accordance with the administrative requirements of the Home Guard Act and Rules. Resultantly, the interim order passed on 09.02.2023, which was issued in an ex parte manner, should be vacated, on the grounds that it was passed sans access to the correct and updated information. 12. Sequentially, it was contended that ‘Home Guard’ is a voluntary organization, governed by a specific set of Acts and Rules, and as such, the petitioner society and its members cannot be equated to ‘public servants’. The Home Guard operates on a self-service basis, with the deployment of its members is necessitated only in emergencies for instance, elections, riots, natural calamities, and other special situations in addition to routine duties. Therefore, the Home Guard serves as a reserve force, trained and ready to be deployed as required. It was further emphasized that the administrative decisions made in accordance with the Act and the Compendium of 2007, should not be assailed, based on bald and unjustified allegations, sans supporting evidence, as they reflect the operational and regulatory framework set forth by the relevant laws. 13. In light of the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had prayed that the present petition be dismissed with heavy costs, as the petitioner's claims is bereft of any merit and fails to meet the requisite legal and factual standards for the maintenance of a writ petition. 14. Upon an assiduous scanning of the records, considering the contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court at this juncture, prior to commenting upon the merits and demerits of the matter, deems it apposite to jot down indubitable facts and relevant governing statues; which are noted herein below: 14.1 That the Home Guards were established in India in the year 1946, and were originally introduced as a voluntary force intended to assist law enforcement agencies in managing civil disturbances and ensuring internal security. The primary purpose of the Home Guards was to provide support during emergencies, such as riots, natural calamities (including earthquakes, cyclones, and epidemics), as well as to maintain law and order during public events like mega fairs, festivals, and elections etc. The primary purpose of the Home Guards was to provide support during emergencies, such as riots, natural calamities (including earthquakes, cyclones, and epidemics), as well as to maintain law and order during public events like mega fairs, festivals, and elections etc. Over time, the scope of the Home Guard's role has expanded, reflecting the evolving security needs of the country, while still maintaining its voluntary nature. 14.2 That the Home Guard force operates predominantly through part-time or temporary volunteers, who are recruited to serve on a voluntary basis, receiving an honorarium for the days they are deployed. This honorarium is provided to these individuals as compensation for their services during deployment, with the understanding that their work is of a temporary and voluntary nature. It is important to note that the volunteers, while serving in their capacity as Home Guards, are not classified as regular public servants, but are instead remunerated on a per-day basis, as per the guidelines set forth by the Home Guard Act and related regulations (in the State of Rajasthan by the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 – hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1963”). 14.3 That under the provisions of the Act of 1963, and as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Home Guards Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1962") the members of the force are provided free training to ensure that they are adequately prepared to meet the specific needs of their role, which includes providing assistance in times of natural disasters, civil unrest, and other emergency situations and to equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge to support law enforcement and other departments during times of crisis. 14.4 That presently, in the State of Rajasthan, the total strength of the Home Guard force stands at 30,714 personnel. These personnel are divided into two categories: the regular Home Guards and the Border Home Guards. The Home Guards are primarily deployed by the Police Department, which is the principal agency utilizing their services. However, their services are also made available to various other government departments across the State of Rajasthan, depending on the requirements of specific situations. The primary responsibility of the Home Guards lies in supporting the Police Department, particularly during events requiring additional manpower for crowd control, security, and maintenance of public order. However, their services are also made available to various other government departments across the State of Rajasthan, depending on the requirements of specific situations. The primary responsibility of the Home Guards lies in supporting the Police Department, particularly during events requiring additional manpower for crowd control, security, and maintenance of public order. However, as a reserve force, Home Guards are also utilized by other departments as and when required, further highlighting the multifaceted and essential role they play in ensuring the safety and security of the public. Their role remains indispensable in maintaining internal security and providing aid during various forms of civil disturbances, natural disasters, and public emergencies. 14.5 That the administration of the Home Guard force in the State of Rajasthan is specifically governed by the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963, and the corresponding rules framed thereunder, namely the Rules of 1962. These legislative instruments provide the detailed structure for the functioning of the Home Guard organization, including the recruitment process, terms of service, training protocols, deployment procedures, and other administrative aspects crucial for the effective operation of the force. 14.6 That the Act of 1963 lays down the legal framework for the establishment, regulation, and management of the Home Guard force, while the Rules of 1962 further clarify and specify the procedural aspects necessary for the day-to-day operations of the force. These Rules also ensure that the Home Guards are adequately trained and equipped to perform their duties efficiently, in accordance with the needs of the state government and law enforcement agencies. 15. At the outset, juxtaposing the averments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides, wherein the allegations made by the petitioner – Society in its petition and written submissions are primarily centered around the assertion, that the respondents have failed to exhaust the services of the currently engaged and registered Home Guards before resorting to the registration of additional personnel. This, according to the petitioner, is in contravention of the Circular dated 05.02.2017 issued by the State Government (Annexure – 2), which provides specific guidelines regarding the deployment and registration of Home Guards. 16. Furthermore, the second submission put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner – Society is that there exists a dearth of transparency in the functioning of the Home Guard deployment system. 16. Furthermore, the second submission put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner – Society is that there exists a dearth of transparency in the functioning of the Home Guard deployment system. It is alleged that this non-transparent mechanism of the respondents has led to the emergence of corruption and unfair practices, particularly with respect to the rotation system employed for the Home Guards. It is claimed that the rotation system, which is intended to distribute duties among the Home Guards, is being misused under the guise of "calling out for duties." According to the petitioner, this practice is being employed despite the Home Guard force allegedly having surplus personnel, which raises concerns of inefficiency and unfairness in the allocation of duties. 17. As in antithesis, learned counsel representing the respondents had contended that the petitioner – Society is bereft of locus standi to file the present writ petition due to the absence of a resolution and other essential details of the Society in the writ petition, as well as the same being dehors Section 1.22 of Chapter (I) of the Compendium of 2007, is well considered and merits attention. 18. Considering the same, it is an undisputed fact that the details of the Society, including the approval of the agenda reference, the passing of the resolution, and the by-laws of the Society, are conspicuously absent from the record. As such, the petitioner has failed to substantiate its standing by providing the requisite foundational documents that are critical for the validation of its claims. Further, it is pertinent to note that, at no point in the writ petition and the litigation that is made over the years, the petitioner has demonstrated compliance with the provisions of Section 1.22 of Chapter (I) of the Compendium of 2007, which governs the recognition of societies. This section specifically mandates the submission of necessary documents to establish the legal recognition of a society for the purposes of any claims made under the Home Guard framework. 19. The failure to present these documents renders the petition substantially deficient and, as such, lacking the required legal standing to be entertained by this Court. The absence of such crucial documents not only undermines the petitioner's claims but also goes against the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what they do not have). 19. The failure to present these documents renders the petition substantially deficient and, as such, lacking the required legal standing to be entertained by this Court. The absence of such crucial documents not only undermines the petitioner's claims but also goes against the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what they do not have). The petitioner, in the absence of recognition under the statutory framework and requisite documentation, is bereft of the necessary locus standi to bring forth the present writ petition. Ergo, the contention of the respondents regarding the petitioner's lack of locus standi is well-founded. 20. It appears that certain individuals, without adhering to the prescribed procedure, have opted to file the present writ petition. Consequently, on the basis of this sole ground, the petition could be liable for dismissal. However, considering the prolonged pendency of the petition, the issuance of an interim order, and the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Society on the Circular dated 5th February, 2017 (Annexure-2), the matter is being taken up for hearing on its merits, rather than being dismissed solely on the aforementioned ground. 21. It is noted that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Harishankar Acharya & Ors. (supra), however, from a bare perusal of the said order it can be deduced that the issues of rotation, surplus, engagement of Home Guards, and lay-off were duly considered by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, and upon examining these issues, the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan was directed to constitute an expert committee to make a decision after considering the relevant issues and suggestions. However, it is pertinent to note that in paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it was expressly stated that the respondents therein, shall not be precluded from registering fresh volunteers/aspirants, and the restraining order imposed therein, by the Court vide order dated 16th October, 2024, was also withdrawn. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract from the said order is reproduced herein below: “13. Nothing would preclude the respondent to get register fresh volunteer/aspirants. The restrain imposed by this Court on previous occasion vide order dated 16.10.2024 is withdrawn for the present. 14. The Chief Secretary or the Expert Committee is further directed to appoint a Coordinator to assist this Court, should the need arise. Nothing would preclude the respondent to get register fresh volunteer/aspirants. The restrain imposed by this Court on previous occasion vide order dated 16.10.2024 is withdrawn for the present. 14. The Chief Secretary or the Expert Committee is further directed to appoint a Coordinator to assist this Court, should the need arise. The aforementioned Committee, through its appointed Coordinator, shall submit a comprehensive report to this Court on or before 01.04. 2025 .The report shall be furnished through Shri B.L. Bhati, Additional Advocate General (AAG), and Shri Deepak Chandak, Assistant Additional Advocate General (AAAG), who usually appears on behalf of the Home Department of the State of Rajasthan.” 22. Thence, under due consideration of the order dated 27th January, 2025 , passed by the Coordinate Bench at the Principal Seat in Jodhpur in the case of Harishankar Acharya & Ors. (supra) and being given that appropriate directions are already issued therein, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. In accordance with principles of judicial discipline, no fresh orders are deemed necessary, as the issue is already settled. Furthermore, since the petitioner and respondents herein, have neither assailed nor raised objections to the said order, it stands as binding precedent as of the present date. 23. It is further analyzed that the present petition was filed in the year 2023, relying upon an internal communication dated 5th February, 2017 (Annexure – 2), which refers to the deployment of Home Guards to the extent of 70%. Upon cautious consideration, it is noted that, as per Annexure – PA/1, in relation to the State of Rajasthan, a total of 33 districts are identified for deployment. On the latest data available, the State Government has successfully achieved 75% (approximately) of the required strength of Home Guards. Consequently, the present petition must be dismissed on this ground alone, as the respondents have already attained the required 75% strength. Moreover, the deployment is in accordance with the emergent requirements and the overarching objectives of the Act, which aims to ensure sufficient and effective utilization of Home Guards in times of need. 24. Consequently, the present petition must be dismissed on this ground alone, as the respondents have already attained the required 75% strength. Moreover, the deployment is in accordance with the emergent requirements and the overarching objectives of the Act, which aims to ensure sufficient and effective utilization of Home Guards in times of need. 24. As per the maxim acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta (the outward acts indicate the thoughts, which are hidden within), the external acts of the respondents, particularly their achievement of 75% strength in Home Guards, reflect their compliance with the statutory, operational requirements and are in good faith and within the bounds of the law, thus negating the need for further judicial intervention. Therefore, the petition stands to be dismissed, as no further remedial action is warranted when the objectives of the Act are being met and the situation is already addressed in accordance with the law by the Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. 25. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner – Society are distinguishable, as they pertain to distinct factual circumstances and are not directly applicable to the present case. 26. In light of the foregoing, the present petition is hereby dismissed. The respondents are directed to comply with the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench at the Principal Seat in Jodhpur, in the case of Harishankar Acharya & Ors. (supra) and proceed accordingly with the advertisement that is issued in furtherance thereof. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 27. Additionally, it is directed that the a report of the committee formulated as per the directions passed in Harishankar Acharya & Ors. (supra) , be placed before this Court also on 01.05. 2025 .