SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had joined the Indian Air Force on August 21, 1974. While joining the Indian Air Force he had the qualification of B.Sc. (Medical). During the course of his service with the Air Force he acquired the qualifications of B.T. from Gauhati University in the year 1980 and thereafter obtained M.A. in English from Panjab University, Chandigarh in the year 1986. He was to be discharged from the Indian Air Force on August 31, 1995 after completion of his tenure provided for the rank of Junior Warrant Officer.

(2.) The State of Punjab had advertised 1000 posts of Lecturers in Schools in the State on December 28, 1994. The last date for submission of applications was within one month of the date of issue of the advertisement. Out of the aforesaid posts, 150 posts were for Lecturers in English. As per the Government Instructions, 14% posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen. The petitioner in response to the aforesaid advertisement applied for the post of Lecturer in English staking his claim for being considered against the posts of Ex-servicemen. He also attached 'No Objection Certificate' from the Air Force authorities. Though the petitioner was called for interview on May 26, 1995, but factually he was not interviewed as the respondents did not consider him to be an ex-serviceman as he was to be discharged from the Indian Air Force much after the date of submission of the application and even the date of interview. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 (as amended up-to-date), read with the explanation to the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, which are being followed by the State of Punjab, an employee working in the Armed Forces, who is to be discharged/retired within one year is to be treated as an ex-serviceman. According to the learned counsel the petitioner's right to be considered as an ex-serviceman was denied. He further submitted that even if the petitioner was not to be considered as an ex-serviceman, he should have been interviewed as he could compete against the post meant for general category.

(3.) It is not necessary for me now in this case to opine whether the petitioner was to be considered as an ex-serviceman as the learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of written instructions has stated that the petitioner may now appear for interview for the post of Lecturer in English before the Departmental Selection Committee on August 22, 1996 at 9.00 A.M., where he shall be interviewed on that date or on a later date that may be told to him on that date, against the post meant for ex-servicemen. It may further be observed here that the petitioner's case, in any case, should have been considered against post meant for general category, even if at the earlier stage the petitioner was not to be considered as an ex-serviceman.