S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE sole question that arises for consideration in this civil writ petition is whether the term "Indian Commissioned Officer" includes and covers the term "Emergency Commissioned Officer.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the petition are that Gurdev Singh, Petitioner was selected as an Emergency Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army in March, 1963. After the requisite training, he served at different places and rose to the rank of Captain by the year 1966 but was released from the Army on the 1st November, 1967. Vide annexure 'A' dated the 17th/19th July, 1968, he was offered a temporary appointment on an ad hoc basis for a period up to six months as the Secretary of the District Soldiers' Sailors' and Airmen's Board at Ropar. This letter of appointment expressly stated that the same was purely temporary and for a period of six months from the date of joining till a candidate is recommended by Punjab Public Service Commission and that the services of the Petitioner may be terminated without notice if his work or conduct was found unsatisfactory. In pursuance of this letter the Petitioner joined the above -said post on the 25th. of July, 1968, and continued in the same even after the expiry of the above period of six months. Subsequently the post of the Secretary was advertised in September, 1968, and it has been averred that the Petitioner appeared for an interview before the Commission on the 31st of December, 1968, but the result of the said interview has not been declared. It is then averred that the Punjab District Soldiers' Sailors' and Airmen's Board (State Service Class II) Rules, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were promulgated, and Rule 7 thereof provided for the qualifications of persons to be admitted into the service specifying them to be as Ex -Indian Commissioned Officers. Thereafter on the 10th of April, 1969, another advertisement was put in for the post of the Secretary, but this specifically mentioned that the Emergency Commissioned Officers were not eligible to apply for the same. No. eligible candidate having been found, a third advertisement was again issued on the 10th of September, 1969, again reiterating that the Emergency Commissioned Officers were not eligible for the post. The Petitioner was consequently debarred from applying and seeking selection for the post above -said and after consideration Respondent No. 4 had been selected to the same, - -vide annexure 'B' dated the 24th of February, 1970. The Petitioner then moved the present writ petition. Returns have been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, the State of Punjab and Respondent No. 3 the Secretary to the Punjab Public Service Commission. It has to be observed that both the returns, which are in almost identical terms, are not very illuminating. However, in substance the position taken up on behalf of the Respondents is that under the Rules, an Emergency Commissioned Officer is not included within the ambit of Rule 7(a) and consequently the advertisement expressly excluded them for the purpose of eligibility.
(3.) THE controversy turns primarily on the language of Rule 7 which may be set down for facility of reference: No person shall be appointed to the Service unless he - (a) is ex -Indian Commissioned Officer of the rank of Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Captain or Major or an Officer of equivalent rank in Indian Navy or Indian Air Force; Provided that the Government may in exceptional circumstances relax this condition; (b) *** (c) *** (d) ***;