M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) (Oral) - The petitioner joined the Armed Forces on Aug. 13, 1970 and was released on 19th July, 1976 at his own request. Since he had spent more than six months in such service, he obviously fell within the definition of the expression "Ex-servicemen" as is plain from Annexure P-2, a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, dated Oct. 14, 1971. Ex-servicemen discharged like the petitioner on compassionate grounds stood also covered in the expression and were eligible for Government service in Classes III and IV as Ex-servicemen. The Punjab Public Service Commission, respondent No. 2, invited applications for 12 posts of Technical Assistants/Scrutiny Inspectors in the Economic and Statistical Organisation, Punjab. The advertisement appearing for the purpose disclosed that three out of the 12 posts were reserved for the personnel recruited in the Indian Armed Forces at the time of Emergency (1-11-1962) and those officers and jawans released therefrom. It was further provided that if the requisite number of military men recruited during Emergency were not forthcoming, Ex-servicemen will be considered. The petitioner did not fall within the first category of Armed Forces so released. Anticipating that the requisite number of military men recruited during Emergency may not be forthcoming, he, on the basis as an Ex-serviceman applied for the post of Technical Assistant. An interview letter Annexure P-3 was issued to him but as a candidate from the general category, for his application was found defective by the Commission on the ground that since he had come from the Armed Forces on compassionate grounds, he could not be treated as Ex-serviceman. As averred by the petitioner, he appeared before the Commission and tried in vain to convince them that he would all the same be an Ex-service-man despite his being released on compassionate grounds. However, as a general candidate he was interviewed but was not selected from the general category. Seemingly, he represented to the Government. The Punjab Public Service Commission and the Government indulged in some correspondence to clarify the matter. Annexure P-4 is one of such letters in which the Commission was advised by the Government that an Army personnel who gets himself released from the Army on compassionate grounds can be treated as an Ex-serviceman and can be given second preference for appointment for the reserved vacancies for the Released Armed Forces Personnel, in accordance with the Government instructions. The Commission was required to reconsider the matter immediately and take a decision. Apparently, while the matter was pending clarification inter se between the two bodies, a post for the petitioner was kept pending. Later on consideration, the matter was settled in favour of one Romesh Kumar and he was recommended from the general category for appointment to the post. The petitioner was informed vide Annexure P-6 the regrets of the Commission in not being able to select the petitioner for appointment. The petitioner making grievance of the non-offering of the post to him has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Returns have been filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Planning Department and Secretary to the Public Service Commission. In the return filed by the former, the buck has been passed to the latter but at the same time it has been averred that initially 11 posts were recommended by the Commission but the 12th one was intimate later by the Commission observing that no Released Armed Forces Personnel/Ex-serviceman was available for the 3rd reserved post of Technical Assistant/Scrutiny Inspector and thus the name of Romesh Kumar in the general category was recommended. The said Romesh Kumar had even joined as District Statistical Officer, Faridkot and thus the petitioner got him impleaded as a respondent at a later stage. So far as the Secretary Public Service Commission is concerned, he had adopted the stand that the petitioner did not come within the meaning of the expression" Released Indian Armed Forces Personnel" Even learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this position. However, the petitioner did come within the definition of "Indian Armed Forces Personnel" and not in the word "released". Such word as defined did not include released from the service at the request of the Armed Forces Personnel himself. The petitioner thus was claimed as not being an Indian Armed Forces Personnel the release of which conferred on him any right under the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1968. Rightly that part is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Secretary Public Service Commission in his return has taken the plea that the Government vide its letter No. 21-2-78-IPP/21890 dated 30th June, 1978, Annexure R-2 gave the following clarification with regard to providing for a second preference to ex-servicemen for appointment against the reserved posts primarily meant for the Released Armed Forces Personnel:- "The question has been carefully considered in the light of the points raised by the Chairman in his letter under reference and the Government is in agreement with his views that the Government instructions in the matter of giving second preference to the Ex-serviceman in the case of Indian Armed Forces Personnel run counter to the rules and thus, cannot be enforced unless the rules are amended to this effect."
(3.) On this line of reasoning, the claim of the petitioner to be appointed as ex-serviceman in one of the post advertised was negatived,;