Allahabad High Court
JANMEJAY SINGHversusState of UP AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner has no legal right to continue engagement and the circular barring volunteers with pending criminal cases is valid.
Summary
The petitioner, Janmejay Singh, claimed to be engaged as a PRD Jawan under the U.P. Provisional Guard/Development Cops Rules and sought a court order directing the State to deploy him despite two pending criminal cases—one under the Prevention of Corruption Act and another under the NDPS Act. He argued that he had been granted bail but was barred from performing duties after 2023. The State contended that a PRD Jawan is a volunteer position, not a regular government employee, and that a circular dated 10‑11‑2023 expressly prohibits engagement of volunteers entangled in criminal proceedings. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the safeguards of Article 311 of the Constitution and that the circular is a valid exercise of administrative discretion, leaving no legal right for the petitioner to demand deployment. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a PRD Jawan, being a volunteer under the U.P. Provisional Guard/Development Cops Rules, is entitled to the protections of Article 311 of the Constitution.
- Whether the circular dated 10‑11‑2023 barring volunteers with pending criminal cases is legally valid.
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ directing the State to deploy the petitioner despite the circular and pending criminal matters.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. 311
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 8
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13, 7
- U.P. Provisional Guard/Development Cops Rules, 1948 (amended 2016)
Subjects
- employment law
- volunteer engagement
- Article 311
- criminal pending cases
- writ jurisdiction
- public service rules
- administrative circular
- disqualification
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6263 of 2024
Janmejay Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Jalaj Singh,
Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.
2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between
the parties and the rival parties do not propose to file any further affidavit.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the
admission stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was engaged as PRD Jawan,
however, he stood entangled in two criminal cases one being Case Crime
No. 268 of 2022 under Section 7/13 of the Anti Corruption Act and the
other one Case Crime No. 265 of 2022 under Section 8/20 of the NDPS
Act. Though the writ petitioner claims to have been enlarged on bail,
however, he has not been permitted to discharge duties. As per the writ
petitioner, in the year 2023 was allowed to perform duties but thereafter,
he has not been allowed to perform duties.
4. Prayer in the present petition is for direction to the respondents to
deploy to the writ petitioner as PRD Jawan.
5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits
that the writ petitioner had been engaged in terms of U.P. Provisional
Guard/Development Cops Rules, 1948 as amended in the year 2016 as
PRD Jawan which is not a regular employment akin to a Government
Servant and further there is no appointment order issued and bearing in
WRIA No. 6263 of 2024
2
mind the circular dated 10.11.2023 the writ petitioner is not being allowed
to perform duties.
6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the
record.
7. Apparently, the writ petitioner claims to be a PRD Jawan who in the
wake of pendency of two criminal cases is not being allowed to perform
duty. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner as to what is the nature of the appointment, the answer to the
same is it is the engagement in the nature of volunteer. The writ petitioner
is not entitled to the benefits of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Moreso, the circular dated 10.11.2023 itself empowers the appointing
authority not to engage or continue the engagement of those volunteers
who are entangled in criminal cases. In absence of any legal right to
continue the engagement, this Court under Article 226 cannot issue a
blanket direction de hors the circular issued by the respondents
themselves.
8. Accordingly, no good ground is made, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
March 19, 2026
Rajesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…