T GOPALAKRISHNAN BHAT Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while serving as an Airman in the Indian Air Force and having 18 1/2 years of service, responded to a notification issued by the Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Kasaragod District. He underwent the written test and became successful and his name was included in the rank list as Rank No. 28. His testimonials were called for, for verification. At that time it was noticed that on the last date fixed for submitting the application, he had 11/2 year's service left to be served in the Indian Air Force. According to the norms prescribed by the Public Service Commission, those who had only one year more service in the armed service alone could apply. Hence he was issued with a notice, Ext. P5, to show cause why his name shall not be deleted from the rank list. He submitted his explanation stating that a minimum period of 15 years alone was required for earning pension in any of the armed forces, but in the Indian Air Force, 20 years is the required minimum period fixed for one to get discharge from service. He had, by the time the selection process had taken place, already completed his term of 20 years and therefore, he could have very well applied pursuant to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission and therefore, there is no reason to delete his name. But this explanation was not found to be satisfactory by the Public Service Commission. This resulted in Ext. P7 communication stating that his name has been ordered to be deleted from the rank list, as his explanation was not satisfactory.

(2.) The learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the petitioner/ appellant that the "specified term of engagement" mentioned in the explanation under R.2 of Ext. P8 and "the prescribed period of armed service" mentioned in Ext. P9 was only 15 years' service, which was sufficient to earn pension, even in Indian Air Force. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. This contention is reagitated before us placing much reliance on the decision reported in Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab and Another ( JT 2002 (3) SC 470 ), contending that, as the petitioner had completed, at the time of filing the application, considerable service to earn pension, he should have been treated as an Exserviceman.

(3.) We are unable to accept this contention. "Exservicemen", going by the main provision of definition in R.2 of the Exservicemen (Reemployment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, is "a person who had been released from service". But by reason of the explanation, thereunder, "a person serving" is also considered as "Exserviceman" for limited purpose. The Explanation reads as under.