Supreme Court: In a case concerning whether the recruitment advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (‘PPSC’), which provided reservation for “ex-servicemen,” would include personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service (‘IMNS’), the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that IMNS personnel are included under the “ex-servicemen” category. The Court directed that respondent 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman and should be considered for appointment under this respondent 4’s appointment would not lead to the automatic termination of the appellant’s service.
Background
The appellant, an ex-serviceman who previously served as a Captain in the Medical Corps of the Indian Army, was selected and appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) pursuant to a public advertisement. She joined the service on 09-12-2022. The contesting party, respondent 4, who had been released from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS), also applied under the same advertisement claiming the status of an ‘ex-serviceman.’ However, her candidature was rejected by the State on the ground that she did not qualify under the ex-servicemen category. Her writ petition challenging the rejection was dismissed by the single judge, who held that personnel from IMNS are not entitled to reservation benefits under the “ex-servicemen” category, based on the interpretation of the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 (‘Central Rules, 1979’).
However, on appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed respondent 4’s claim, holding that the relevant recruitment rules, namely, the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (‘Punjab Rules, 1982’), do not exclude individuals who have retired or been released from the IMNS from availing the benefit accorded to ex-servicemen. Accordingly, the High Court directed that respondent 4 be appointed forthwith, if found meritorious, and be granted notional service benefits.
Pending the disposal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant, this Court granted an interim order staying the operation of the High Court’s judgment. As a result, the appellant, who was appointed on 09-12-2022, continues to remain in service.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the PPSC had issued an advertisement dated 12-12-2020 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts under the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch). Clause 2 of the advertisement specified both the number of vacancies and the categories for which reservation was applicable. Among these were reservations for Ex-Servicemen and Lineal Descendants of Ex-Servicemen, in accordance with the Punjab Rules, 1982. The Court observed that the reservation for ‘ex-servicemen’ under the advertisement must be construed in light of the definition provided in Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982.
The Court clarified that the Central Rules, 1979 do not apply to the facts of the present case, as the recruitment advertisement was issued by the PPSC for posts under the State Government. In accordance with Article 309 of the Constitution, it is the State Government that has the authority to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service for such posts. The Punjab Rules, 1982 were framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Article 309, read with Articles 234 and 318 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Central Rules, 1979 cannot be relied upon to determine eligibility under the “ex-servicemen” category for appointments made pursuant to the advertisement issued by the PPSC.
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab, (2002) 4 SCC 154, wherein, while considering a similar claim for reservation under the “ex-servicemen” category in relation to a recruitment advertisement by the Punjab Public Service Commission, it had interpreted the term solely with reference to Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982.
The Court observed that the central issue for determination was whether respondent 4 qualifies as an “ex-serviceman” under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982. There was no dispute regarding the eligibility of the appellant, who had been released from the Indian Army upon completion of her service, thereby clearly falling within the ambit of the “ex-servicemen” category. Accordingly, the Court limited its inquiry to the eligibility of respondent 4.
The Court noted that respondent 4 had joined the MNS in 2013 as a Short Service Commissioned Officer and was released on 04-09-2018 upon completion of her tenure, with entitlement to gratuity as per applicable rules. To assess her claim, the Court proceeded to examine the legal status of the IMNS.
The Court referred to the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943, which was promulgated under the
From a combined reading of the relevant provisions, the Court held that the IMNS is constituted as a “part of the Indian military” and forms “part of the armed forces of the Union.” The personnel of the IMNS hold commissioned officer ranks, and their service and conduct are governed by the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943, along with select provisions of the Army Act, 1911, regulations issued by the Chief of Army Staff, and rules framed by the Central Government.
The Court also referred to its decision in Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 720, wherein it was held that the IMNS is an auxiliary force of the Indian military and forms part of the Indian Army, although it constitutes a distinct and separate class within the armed forces.
The Court interpreted the term “ex-serviceman” as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to determine whether personnel of the IMNS fall within its scope. Before examining the specific language of the rule, the Court emphasized the importance of recognising its underlying purpose and objective. Understanding the intent behind the State’s policy and the broader public interest it aims to serve.
The Court observed that the State Government recognises the contribution of residents of Punjab who join the armed forces of the Union. Serving the nation in the armed forces demands significant physical fitness, which is closely tied to age. While individuals may become a spent force for military purposes upon their release, they remain young, capable, and valuable assets to civil society. Their re-engagement in civilian life is not merely about providing employment to ex-servicemen, it also advances the broader national interest and contributes to building a fair and healthy society. The policy of the State Government reflects the reality that Punjab contributes significantly to the Indian armed forces.Ensuring effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is crucial to maintaining the morale of current service members. A failure to do so could dissuade the nation’s talented youth from choosing a career in the armed forces.
The Court noted that, in this context, Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982 defines an “ex-serviceman” as a person who has served in any rank, whether as a combatant or non-combatant in the Naval, Military, or Air Force of the Union, and who has retired or been released from service under specific conditions. Of particular relevance is clause (iv), which applies to individuals who have been released after completing their term of engagement, provided such release was not at their own request, nor due to dismissal or discharge on grounds of misconduct or inefficiency, and who have been granted gratuity.
The Court stated that respondent 4 clearly falls within the definition of “ex-serviceman” under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982. She served as a Short Service Commissioned officer in the IMNS. Rule 2(c) specifically includes “Military,” along with Navy and Air Force, and as per the MNS Ordinance, 1943 and this Court’s decision in Jasbir Kaur (supra), the IMNS is part of the Indian Military and the Armed Forces of the Union.
The Court stated that, considering the intent of the Punjab Rules, 1982, which are designed to provide employment opportunities to those who have served in the armed forces, and the explicit inclusion of Military personnel under Rule 2(c), there is no justification for excluding IMNS personnel from the category of “ex-servicemen.” Additionally, respondent 4 satisfies the conditions under Clause (iv) of Rule 2(c), as she was released from service after completing her engagement period and was granted gratuity.
The Court also addressed the submission made by the State of Punjab, which argued that IMNS personnel should be excluded from the “ex-servicemen” category under the Punjab Rules, 1982, in light of clarifications issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The Court disagreed with this submission, stating that the purpose of the Kendriya Sainik Board is to formulate, advise on, and implement resettlement and welfare policies for ex-servicemen and their dependents. While the Board may determine eligibility for these policies, its clarifications do not impact the Punjab Rules, 1982, which are formulated by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution.
The Court agreed with the division bench of the High Court that respondent 4 qualifies to claim benefits under the “ex-servicemen” category as defined in the Punjab Rules, 1982. Regarding the appellant, although the High Court did not specifically address her appointment, the Court clarified that there is no dispute about her eligibility under the “ex-servicemen” category. The issue arose because both the appellant and respondent 4 were competing for the same post.
Noting that the appellant was appointed as Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in the Punjab Civil Services on 09-12-2022 and has continued in service without interruption, the Court concluded that canceling her appointment at this stage would cause great injustice, as her eligibility has never been in question.
Consequently, the Court directed that respondent 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman and must be considered for appointment under the “ex-servicemen” category. If she is found to be meritorious and otherwise eligible, she should be appointed and entitled to notional benefits of service, though she would not be entitled to backwages. The Court clarified that respondent 4’s appointment would not result in the automatic termination of the appellant’s service.
[Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 789, decided on 16-04-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv., Mr. Nikunj Arora, Adv., Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR, Mr. K S Rekhi, Adv., Mrs. P S Vijayadharni, Adv., Mr. Arindam Sarin, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G., Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv., Nishanth Patil, AOR
