Sampuran Singh Sandhu v. State Of Punjab Etc.

M.R. Sharma, J. - The petitioner belongs to a family with military traditions. While he was studying in the Pre-University class, he decided to join the Armed Forces and was recruited as sepoy on December 31, 1964. The petitioner is present before me and he states that he joined as a combatant in the 4th Battalion of the Sikh Regiment. During the Indo-Pak conflict in 1965, the petitioner fought at the Barki Front. He was mentioned in the dispatches and was also awarded Raksha Medal in 1965. In March, 1966, he was elected as a Cadet for permanent Commission and sent for training to the Military Academy at Poona. While on leave as a Cadet, he met with an accident which resulted in the amputation of his left arm. This permanent disability put an end to his ambitions as a combatant in the Indian Armed Forces. Consequently, he put in a request to the Army Head Quarters that he should be released from service. 2. After his release, the petitioner passed his B.A. Examination in the year 1970 and L.L.B. examination of the Panjab University in the First Division in the year 1973. The petitioner appeared in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination held in December, 1973. This examination was held by the Punjab Public Service Commission for recruitment to the ten posts in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) Branch. Two posts out of the ten were reserved for the Released Army Personnel. The result of the examination was declared in May, 1974. The petitioner's name appeared at No. 34 in the merit list. Respondent No. 3, who is also a Released Army Personnel, was placed at No. 22 in the merit list. The Punjab Public Services Commission did not treat the petitioner as a Released Army Personnel to be considered for appointment to one of the two posts reserved for this class. He has filed the instant petition challenging the decision of the Punjab Public Service Commissioner on this point. 3. In the return filed on behalf of the commission, it has been averred that the petitioner was released at his own instance and such persons were not treated as Released Army Personnel for the purpose of reservation of posts for this class. 4. Rule 2 of the Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1969, reads as under :-

"2(1) Twenty per cent of the vacancies in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) to be filled up through direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filed by the Released Indian Armed Forces Personnel who joined Military service or were commissioned on or after the first day of November, 1962, and are released at any time thereafter."

5. A plain reading of the rule shows that the word `released' has not been qualified by any consideration, like released at the instance of the Army authorities only. This phrase would, therefore, be given beneficial interpretation in favour of those to whom it is meant to apply. I do not for a moment suggest that even deserters from the army or those who seek release from the Armed Forces against the wishes of the Army authorities should also be given the benefit of this provision. Mr. Gupta is right in submitting that this rule is meant for rehabilitating those members of the Armed Forces whose services are no longer required by the Army authorities. At the same time, it would result in manifest injustice if this rule is not made applicable to the case of the petitioner. He joined the Combatant Branch of the Indian Army with the hope that he would be able to rise but his ambitions were cut short because of the unfortunate accident. With one arm only, he could not continue to serve in an Infantry Battalion. The accident was not of his own seeking and I think it would be injust to expect of him to serve as a non-combatant follower in the Army. If in such a situation, he puts in a request for his release, he should not be regarded as deserter and full benefit of the rule should be given to him. As a matter of fact, he made his application through the Army authorities, who forwarded it to the Punjab Public Service Commission with the request that they should consider his application favourably so that he may be resettled. From this circumstance, it is reasonable to infer that the Army authorities themselves regarded him as a demobilized Armed Personnel who was entitled to receive all benefits in the matter of Civil employment available to this class. In my considered opinion, the Punjab Public Service Commission was in error in not treating him as a demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, submitted that at the material time the petitioner was serving as Cadet and hence he should not be regarded as an Army Personnel. This argument has to be stated and rejected. The petitioner was selected for permanent Commission while he was serving as a sepoy and even if he had not been able to qualify as Cadet he would in all probability had continued as sepoy. Furthermore, as a Cadet he continued to remain under the discipline of the Indian Army and the provisions of the Indian Army Act and the rules framed thereunder fully applied to his case. 6. The other submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is that the reservation of seats for the demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel is a concession accorded to this class by the Government and that a concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This argument is also devoid of any force. Article 16 of the Constitution enjoins on the State to afford equality of opportunity in matter relating to services to all the citizens. If the petitioner belongs to a class to which some benefits have been granted by the State, non-consideration of his case for the receipt of these benefits would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution. The mandatory provisions of this Article cannot be nullified by an argument that a concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 7. Last of all it was argued on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the rules were promulgated in 1969 for a period of five years only and by now they have expired. According to Mr. Gupta, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit which accrued to him under the rules which have ceased to remain on the statute book. I am not impressed with this argument either in the first place, Mr. Gupta's client, whose name appears at No. 82 in the merit list, is himself claiming the benefit of being a demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel and he cannot complain if a similar benefit is claimed by somebody else. Secondly, Article 16 of the Constitution applies not only to a statutory provision but also to an executive decision of the State Government. If the State Government by a declaration of policy decides to confer some benefits in matters relating to service upon a particular class, then a member of that class who is denied those benefits will have a right to agitate that matter in a Court of law. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition deserves to succeed and I order accordingly. The Punjab Public Service Commission and the State of Punjab are directed to treat the petitioner as a Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel for the purpose of making recruitment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The petitioner will also be entitled to his costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-. The costs shall be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only. Petition succeeds.