THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.28949 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as Home Guard by the Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, through order, dated 13.06.1999. On the ground that he remained absent for a period of 15 days, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 21.10.2002, removing the petitioner from the rolls. The petitioner contends that he has been making representations for the past several years, explaining the reasons for his absence and alleged that no action has been taken thereon. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner was found fit to be appointed as Home Guard, and he worked for about three years. He was removed from the rolls, through orders, dated 21.10.2002, along with five others. The post of Home Guard is not a regular vacancy and the appointment is on daily wage basis. The absence of the petitioner may certainly have caused dislocation of work in the organization. At the same time, two factors viz., that the petitioner is unemployed and had gained experience to work as Home Guard, cannot be ignored. This Court is of the view that the 1st respondent can consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Home Guard afresh, duly taking into account his past experience. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that, as and when the 1st respondent takes steps to appoint or enroll Home Guards, he shall consider the case of the petitioner, duly taking into account, the fact that he has gained experience of about three years. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.11.2010. GJ