Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY the case of the petitioners is that they were selected for the 12th Emergency Commission Course in 1964. After their selection the Government decided to introduce "Short Service Commission". The petitioners after getting requisite training were granted Short Service Commissions in 1965. In 1976 when petitioner No. 1 was acting as Major and petitioner No 2 as Captain, they were released from service. It is stated that during stay in Army their work and conduct was good and they were awarded various medals etc.
(2.) IN July, 1976, the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) advertised certain posts including those of 3 Secretaries District Sanik Board, in the Daily Tribune. The petitioners applied for the posts of Secretaries District Sanik; Board. Petitioner No. 1 was placed by the Commission at No. 3 and petitioner No. 2 at No. 2 in order of merit. One Major Pakhar Singh Atwal was placed at No. 1. He received letter of appointment but the petitioners did not. They made several representations for being appointed but the Government did not appoint them. Ultimately, petitioner No. 1 met the Chief Minister in August, 1977, who promised to help them, it is alleged that the Government instead of conveying any decision to the petitioners issued a fresh advertisement advertising the two vacancies against which they had been selected. The action of the Government in not appointing them against the two vacancies of Secretaries District Sanik Board has been challenged in this writ petition. The respondents contested the petition and inter alia pleaded that the qualifications for appointment on the said posts was that the candidates should be Ex -Indian Commissioned Officers but the petitioners were Ex -short Service Commissioned officers and were not eligible to apply.
(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impression Indian Commissioned Officer, is not a term of art and includes all commissioned officers serving in the Army. According to him, an Emergency Commissioned Officer and a Short Service Commissioned Officer are included in the term Indian Commissioned Officer. To buttress his argument he has referred to sub -sections 18 and 21 of section 3 of the Army Act, 1950 which define the words officer and "regular Army." On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that the petitioners have not put forward this case in the writ petition and they should not be allowed to do so now. He has also submitted that the argument is fallacious.;