9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining the eligibility of appellants as 'ex-servicemen' for appointment under Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of an appellant as an 'ex-serviceman' for appointment under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules. The appellant, a former Indian Army personnel, was discharged at his own request after serving for 18 years and 24 days. The key question was whether his discharge at his own request would exclude him from being considered an ex-serviceman under the Rules. The Rules defined 'ex-servicemen' as individuals released from service under specific conditions excluding those discharged at their own request. The High Court upheld the Commission's decision, emphasizing the distinction between 'discharge,' 'retire,' and 'release' in army personnel matters. It concluded that the appellant, having been discharged at his own request, did not fall under the definition of 'ex-servicemen' as per the Rules. The Supreme Court analyzed the Rules and the purpose of reservation for ex-servicemen in civil services. It highlighted the need for a purposive interpretation of the Rules to serve the intent and benefit ex-servicemen. The Court emphasized that all ex-defence service personnel should be treated as a separate class for job offers without arbitrary differentiation. It argued that earning a pension after the required service period in the army should qualify an individual as an ex-serviceman, regardless of the manner of discharge. The Court criticized the High Court's reliance on a specific sub-clause of the definition, stating that it did not apply to cases where individuals were granted pension benefits before release. It advocated for a broader interpretation of 'retired' in the context of the Rules to include those who voluntarily left after earning a pension. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It directed the authorities to declare the appellants' competitive examination results promptly and consider their appointment in line with the service rules and legal provisions. The Court did not order costs in the matter, emphasizing the importance of interpreting the Rules in a manner that upholds the purpose of ex-servicemen reservation without arbitrary exclusions based on discharge circumstances.
|
