INDERJIT KAUSHIK Vs. PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER an Ex -serviceman discharged on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment under Rule 15(2)(b) of the Air Force Rules, 1939 - -is within the meaning of a person released on demobilization under Rule 2(d) of the Demobilised Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Non -Technical Services) Rules, 1968, as amended, is the significant and indeed the solitary question in this set of three connected writ petitions.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties being agreed that the facts and issues of law are closely similar, it suffices to advert to those in C.W.P. No. 5339 of 1981 Inderjit Kaushik v. The Punjab Public Service Commission Patiala and Anr. On his own showing, the Petitioner joined the Indian Air Force on June 19, 1964 as a Corporal and after putting in 15 years regular service, was released on fulfilling conditions of his enrolment with reserved liability for two years, under Rule 15(2)(b). The discharge certificate from the regular Air Force Service issued to him is annexure P/1 to the petition. During his tenure of service, the Petitioner had secured his L.L.B., degree and later enrolled himself as an Advocate in July, 1979. Meanwhile, an advertisement, dated January 20, 1979 was published in the Tribune by the Punjab Public Service Commission for, the holding of a competitive examination for recruitment to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) and other allied services. The examination was scheduled to be held in September, 1979 though it was later postponed to November 1, 1979., There were in all 64 posts out of which 13 were reserved for the Released Indian Armed Forces, Personnel under the Demobilised Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1972. However, as far as allied services are concerned, the admitted position is that the reservation for the posts is done under rules known as Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancsies in the Punjab State Non -Technical Services) Rules, 1968, as amended, - -vide 1st Amendment Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Petitioner's claim in that he was entitled for being considered to one of the reserved posts in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) as well as allied services subject to the condition of passing the competitive examination held by the Commission, Accordingly, in response to the advertisement aforesaid, the Petitioner applied for sitting in the competitive examination and also indicated his preference for the various services therein. Later the Petitioner appeared in the examination held by the Commission in November, 1979, but when the result thereof was published in May, 1980, he did not figure amongst the candidates who had passed the same.

(3.) IN the return filed on behalf of the Respondent - -Public Service Commission, the firm stand taken both by way of preliminary objection and merits is that the Petitioner having been discharged from the Air Force, was not covered by the definition of the Released Indian Armed Forces Personnel, under Rule 2(d) of the Rules. It is highlighted that the Petitioner served in the Air Force on regular basis and was discharged after putting in 15 years' and 10 days of service and he had not been released on demobilization under the Phased Programme of Demobilization approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. It is clarified that the Petitioner was only allowed to sit in the examination on a provisional basis as some clarifications with regard to the definition of Released Indian Armed Forces Personnel were being made. After a thorough consideration of the matter, the answering Respondent had held that the Petitioner's case was not covered by the definition. Therefore, his result was not declared along with the successful candidates and consequently there was no question of calling the Petitioner for interview. Respondent No. 2 has taken a stand in line with that by the Respondent -Commission.