- (1.) SUSHIL Harkauli, J. On completion of the contracted period of service, the respondent No. 4 was demobilized from the Indian Army in the year 1986. He thereafter passed the Provincial Police Service Examination, 1990. He was appointed to the U. P. Police Service in the year 1994. By the impugned order dated 29-11-2004 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), he has been placed in the seniority list between 1982 and 1983 Batches on account of his being a demobilized officer from the Indian Army before joining the U. P. Police Service.
(2.) THE petitioners joined the U. P. Police Service between 1984 and 1990. THEy are challenging the said back seniority given to the respondent No. 4. THE benefit of back seniority has been given to respondent No. 4 under the U. P. Non-technical (Class II/group B) Services (Appointment of Demobilized Officers Rules, 1980, as amended in 1990. THE said Rules of 1980 are hereinafter referred to, for short, as the 1980 Demobilization Rules. A copy of the 1980 Demobilization Rules has been enclosed as Annexure '1' to the writ petition and a copy of the 1990 'first amendment' to those Rules has been enclosed as Annexure '2' to the writ petition. The first argument from the petitioners side is that respondent No. 4 should not be treated to be a 'demobilized officer' within the meaning of 1980 Demobilization Rules. For appreciating this argument it would be necessary to consider the definition of 'demobilized officer' given in Rule 3 (b) of the Demobilization Rules, 1980. It is quoted below : "3. Definitions.- In these Rules unless the context otherwise requires, - (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) "demobilized Officer" means Disabled Defence Service Officer, Emergency Commissioned Officer and the Short Service Commissioned Officer of the Armed Forces of the Union who was commissioned on or after November 1, 1962 but before January 10, 1968 or on or after December 3, 1971 and released at any time thereafter. (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " The petitioners contend that respondent No. 4 joined the Indian Army in 1981 and was discharged from the Army in 1986 apparently as a Short Service Commissioned Officer. The petitioners rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Janam Singh v. State of U. P. , (1994) 2 SCC 620, in support of the proposition that these Demobilization Rules were intended to benefit only those Army Officers who had joined the army during the period of war or external aggression for serving the country during the difficult times. The petitioners suggest that in the light of the above purpose, the definition of 'demobilized officer' in Rule 3 (b) should be read down to curtail the period "after December 3, 1971", to mean after 3-12-1971 but before a particular date when the 1971 emergency due to external aggression, was lifted.
(3.) WE have examined the decision of Ram Janam Singh (supra ). In that decision the Supreme Court was examining the exclusion of the period from 11-6-1968 to 2-12-1971 in Rule 3 (b) and in that context the Supreme Court justified the exclusion by saying that between January 10, 1968 and December 3, 1971 emergency had been lifted and there were normal times and, therefore, the officers, who had joined the Army during these normal times, could not be treated at par with those who had joined the Army during emergency and a special privilege of seniority granted to officers, who had joined the Army for serving the country during the difficult times, amounted to reasonable classification. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of the aforesaid period from 1968 to 1971. However, we have not been shown any decision whereby the benefit of Demobilization Rules, 1980 have been denied to any person who, after being demobilized from Army, had joined the Civilian Government services after post December 3, 1971 emergency was lifted. Thus the petitioners' contention does not appear to be supported by precedent. So we now examine whether the contention is supported by logic.;