THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.26653 and 28129 2007 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners were engaged as Home Guards by the respondents. Their services were discontinued on attaining the age of 60 years. They submitted representations for their continuance beyond 60 years citing certain instances. These writ petitions are filed complaining that the claim of the petitioners was not considered. The respondents filed counter-affidavits stating that according to the norms for engagement of Home Guards, 60 years is the maximum age and the petitioners cannot be continued as Home Guards. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. It may be true that there are instances where the Government has relaxed the age of 60 years for continuing some retired Home Guards. That, however, cannot constitute a precedent. The Home Guards are required to discharge the duties, which are similar to those of Police Constables and are engaged in maintenance of law and order. The employees on executive and ministerial side are retired on attaining the age of 58 and 60 years. Further, a Police Constable appointed on regular basis is also retiring at the age of 58 years. This Court is not inclined to issue any directions to the respondents to continue the petitioners beyond 60 years. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.06.2010. kdl