Indian Military Nursing Service Officers Declared “Ex‑Servicemen” for State Reservation:
Commentary on Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission (2025 INSC 494)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission (C.A. No. 5235/2025, decided 16‑04‑2025) addresses a long‑standing ambiguity over whether personnel of the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS/MNS) qualify as “ex‑servicemen” for the purpose of reservation in civil posts under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex‑Servicemen Rules, 1982.

The appellant, Capt. (Retd.) Irwan Kour, and the contesting respondent (Respondent No. 4) both applied under the 2020 recruitment advertisement to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch). While Capt. Kour (from the Army Medical Corps) was appointed, Respondent No. 4—an MNS Short‑Service Commissioned Officer—was rejected under the ex‑servicemen category. Divergent views by a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court culminated in this Supreme Court appeal.

Key questions before the Court were:

1. Does the 1982 Punjab Rules’ definition of “ex‑serviceman” include IMNS/MNS personnel?
2. Do the Central Ex‑Servicemen (Re‑employment) Rules, 1979 override or inform the State definition?
3. If both candidates are eligible, how should the competing equities of continued service and fresh appointment be balanced?

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The Court held that the Punjab Rules, 1982 are the sole governing instrument for the disputed recruitment; the Central Rules, 1979 are inapplicable to State posts.
2. Interpreting Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, the Bench concluded that:

“There is no reason to exclude IMNS personnel from the ambit of ‘ex‑servicemen’.”

Because the IMNS is statutorily declared “part of the armed forces of the Union” (MNS Ordinance, 1943) and its officers hold commissioned rank, an MNS retiree who meets the release criteria (here, clause (iv) with gratuity) qualifies.
3. Respondent No. 4 must be appointed with notional service benefits but no back wages.
4. Capt. Kour’s appointment will not be disturbed in equity, thereby permitting both candidates to coexist in service.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab, (2002) 4 SCC 154:
  The Court used this case to underscore that for State‑cadre posts, the Punjab Rules, 1982 alone determine ex‑servicemen status.
• Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 720:
  Confirmed IMNS as an “auxiliary force” and “part of the Army,” though distinct. This precedent provided the doctrinal bedrock for treating MNS staff as military personnel.
• Constitutional provisions: Articles 309, 234 & 318 – emphasised State competence in framing service‑rules; Article 372 – continuity of pre‑Constitution ordinances (MNS Ordinance, 1943).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Interpretation. Rule 2(c) employs inclusive language—service “in any rank, whether combatant or non‑combatant, in the… Military… of the Union.” The IMNS fits within “Military” by virtue of Section 3 of the MNS Ordinance declaring it “part of the armed forces.”
2. Purpose‑oriented approach. The Court contextualised the rule’s social objective: resettlement and motivation of veterans, especially in Punjab which contributes disproportionately to the Army. Excluding a bona fide cohort such as IMNS would defeat that object.
3. Rejection of Executive Clarifications. Letters from the Kendriya Sainik Board seeking to exclude IMNS lacked statutory force and could not amend rules framed under Article 309.
4. Central vs. State Rules. Rule 3 of the 1979 Central Rules confines its reach to Central services. Hence the Central definition (which omits MNS) does not apply to a State advertisement.
5. Equitable Relief. Recognising the appellant’s uninterrupted service since 2022, the Court invoked equitable considerations to protect her tenure while granting appointment to respondent No. 4 prospectively.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Pan‑India persuasive value. Although confined to Punjab Rules, the judgment’s ratio clarifies that where State rules mirror Rule 2(c)—or are silent—MNS retirees must be treated as ex‑servicemen.
• Gender inclusivity in veteran policies. IMNS is an overwhelmingly female cadre; recognition expands tangible benefits to women veterans, signalling gender‑neutral application of military welfare schemes.
• Administrative Alignment. The Kendriya Sainik Board and other welfare bodies may need to revisit their exclusionary circulars to avoid conflict with this precedent.
• Recruitment Litigation. Ongoing or future disputes in other States or Central agencies are likely to cite this decision, reducing contradictory interpretations.
• Constitutional Clarification. Reaffirms that executive instructions cannot curtail statutory rights under rules framed pursuant to Article 309.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Ex‑Serviceman: A retired member of the armed forces meeting specified discharge criteria; enjoys reservations and concessions in civil employment.
• IMNS / MNS: Indian Military Nursing Service—nursing officers commissioned into the Army; governed by a 1943 ordinance; technically “military” though primarily non‑combatant.
• Article 309: Empowers Parliament or State Legislatures (or President/Governor until then) to frame service rules for government posts.
• Auxiliary Force: A supporting arm of the main forces; in law, often treated as part of “armed forces” unless explicitly excluded.
• Notional Benefits: Hypothetical seniority/pay for purposes such as pension, without actual salary arrears.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Irwan Kour cements the principle that Indian Military Nursing Service personnel are “military” for the purpose of ex‑servicemen reservation under State rules, unless those rules expressly say otherwise. By grounding its analysis in statutory text, constitutional competence, and welfare objectives, the Court harmonised policy with gender neutrality and veteran welfare. Administratively, Punjab must now extend reservation benefits to MNS veterans, and similar State frameworks will likely follow. Importantly, the judgment reiterates that executive clarifications cannot override duly enacted service rules, reinforcing the hierarchy of legal norms.