WP(C) 240/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, lear ned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioners in the present petition though have prayed for a direction to th e respondent No.6 to regularize their services as Home Guard, the learned counse l for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners do not press such praye r and instead prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider t heir case for engagement as Home Guards, if the Government decides to engage any person as Home guard. It is the case of the petitioners that they were engaged as Home guards for 18 ( eighteen) months and thereafter, on 30th April, 2010 they were released from ser vice. It is also the case of the petitioners that after their initial engagemen t, they were trained for 6 (six) months. The petitioners pray that their case be considered for engagement as Home Guards, if any decision is taken by the Gover nment for such engagement. Mr. Ghosh, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioners alongwith other similarly placed persons shall be consid ered in accordance with law, whenever exigencies of service requires engagement of any Home Guard. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the direction tha t the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioners for enga gement as Home Guards alongwith other similarly placed persons, if the Governmen t decides to engage any person as Home Guard provided they are willing to work a s Home Guards. Such consideration has necessarily to be made in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.