Summary
Personnel released from the Indian Military Nursing Service qualify as 'ex-servicemen' under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, because the IMNS is constituted by the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943 as part of the armed forces of the Union; the Central Rules of 1979 and Kendriya Sainik Board clarifications do not govern State reservations. The High Court's direction to appoint respondent no. 4 was upheld, while the appellant's existing appointment was protected.
Issues
- Whether reservation for 'ex-servicemen' in a Punjab Public Service Commission advertisement, governed by the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, extends to personnel released from the Indian Military Nursing Service.
- Whether the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 or clarifications of the Kendriya Sainik Board determine eligibility for reservation in State posts.
- Whether the appellant, appointed under the same advertisement and in service since December 2022, should lose her post because respondent no. 4 was found eligible.
Provisions considered
- Rule 2(c) (read with Rules 3 and 4), Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982Rule 2(c) defines 'ex-serviceman' as a person who served in any rank, combatant or non-combatant, in the Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Union and was released in specified circumstances; clause (iv) covers release on completion of the engagement period, otherwise than at own request or for misconduct, with gratuity. Reading the rule purposively in light of the State's policy of resettling veterans, the Court held that 'Military' includes the IMNS and that respondent no. 4, a Short Service Commissioned IMNS officer released on completion of service with gratuity, fell within clause (iv). Rule 4 reserves 13% of direct-recruitment vacancies for ex-servicemen. (¶¶ 7, 8, 14, 14.1, 16, 17, 18)
- Sections 3, 4, 5 and 9, Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943Section 3 raises the IMNS as an auxiliary force 'as part of the armed forces of the Union' for service with the Indian military forces; Section 4 makes members liable for service with forces subject to the Army Act; Section 5 makes all members commissioned officers appointed by the Central Government; Section 9 applies the Indian Army Act, 1911 to them with adaptations. From these the Court concluded that the IMNS is part of the Indian military and of the armed forces of the Union, consistent with Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India. (¶¶ 11, 12, 12.1, 13, 17)
- Articles 309, 234, 318 and 372, Constitution of IndiaThe Punjab Rules, 1982 were framed by the State under Article 309 read with Articles 234 and 318, so the State regulates recruitment to its posts and the Central Rules, 1979 do not apply; the 1943 Ordinance continues in force by virtue of Article 372. Clarifications of the Kendriya Sainik Board have no bearing on rules framed under Article 309. (¶¶ 9, 11, 19)
- Rule 3, Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979As amended in 2012, Rule 3 restricts these Rules to Central Civil Services and posts up to the level of Assistant Commandant in paramilitary forces; they therefore do not determine eligibility under a State advertisement, and the single judge erred in relying on them. (¶¶ 3, 9)
Held
- Eligibility for reservation as 'ex-servicemen' in recruitment to posts under a State Government is governed by the State's own rules framed under Article 309 (here Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982) and not by the Central Rules, 1979, whose Rule 3 confines them to Central Civil Services and posts. (¶ 9)
- The Indian Military Nursing Service, constituted by the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943 as an auxiliary force forming part of the armed forces of the Union, with members of commissioned rank governed by provisions of the Army Act, is part of the Indian military; its released personnel fall within 'Military' in Rule 2(c) and cannot be excluded from the category of ex-servicemen. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 17, 18)
- Rule 2(c) must be read in light of its purpose of providing employment to those who served in the armed forces and of the larger national interest in resettling veterans; respondent no. 4, released on completion of her engagement period with gratuity, satisfies clause (iv) of the definition. (¶¶ 14, 14.1, 15, 16, 18)
- Clarifications issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board, whose function is to formulate and implement resettlement and welfare schemes for ex-servicemen, may determine eligibility for those schemes but have no bearing on reservation rules framed by a State Government under Article 309. (¶ 19)
- Where the appellant's eligibility was never doubted and she had served uninterruptedly since December 2022, cancelling her appointment after the passage of time would cause great injustice; the appointment of respondent no. 4 will not result in automatic termination of the appellant's service. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed with directions: respondent no. 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman and, being meritorious, must be appointed if otherwise eligible, with notional service benefits but no back wages; her appointment will not automatically terminate the appellant's service; parties to bear their own costs; pending applications disposed of.