“Effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces.” - SC
This statement by the Supreme Court, was made in a recent judgment examining a complex question of whether personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) qualify as "ex-servicemen" under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. With the potential to impact the careers of ex-servicemen and shape state recruitment policies, the Court's analysis navigates both statutory interpretation and the broader goals of military resettlement. To understand the full implications, read the complete case analysis here.
Brief Facts:
Irwan Kour, a former Army Captain, was appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in Punjab Civil Services on 09.12.2022 under the ex-servicemen quota, per a 2020 Punjab Public Service Commission advertisement. The fourth respondent, a former Short Service Commissioned officer in the IMNS, applied under the same category but was rejected on 20.05.2021, as the state deemed IMNS personnel ineligible. Her writ petition was dismissed, but the High Court’s division bench reversed this, ruling IMNS personnel eligible under the Punjab Rules, 1982, and ordered her appointment with notional benefits if meritorious.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Irwan Kour, argued that her appointment as Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in the Punjab Civil Services on 09.12.2022 under the ex-servicemen quota was valid and should not be disturbed. She contended that the High Court’s decision to allow the fourth respondent’s claim as an ex-serviceman under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, was erroneous, as it could jeopardize her position. Kour asserted that personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) should not be considered ex-servicemen, aligning with the state’s initial rejection of the fourth respondent’s candidature. She emphasized her undisputed eligibility and continuous service since appointment, arguing that overturning her appointment would cause significant injustice.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The fourth respondent, a former IMNS officer, contended that she qualified as an ex-serviceman under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982, and was wrongly denied the reservation benefit by the state. She argued that the IMNS, as part of the Indian Military and armed forces per the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943, falls within the definition of "Military" in the Punjab Rules. Having served from 2013 to 2018 and been released with gratuity, she satisfied the eligibility criteria under Rule 2(c)(iv). She challenged the state’s reliance on clarifications from the Kendriya Sainik Board, asserting that these do not override the Punjab Rules, which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. She sought appointment with notional benefits, as directed by the High Court.
Observation of the Court:
The Supreme Court determined whether Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) personnel qualify as "ex-servicemen" under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, for state civil services reservation. The Court’s reasoning focused on statutory interpretation, the IMNS’s legal status, and the policy intent behind ex-servicemen reservations.
The Court held that the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, were inapplicable, as “the Central Rules, 1979 will not apply to determine the eligibility under ‘ex-servicemen’ category” for state posts governed by the Punjab Rules, 1982, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. It reaffirmed this in light of Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab (2002).
The Court noted that the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943, constitutes IMNS as “part of the armed forces of the Union” and “part of the Indian military,” with personnel holding commissioned ranks, as confirmed in Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India (2003). Under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, an "ex-serviceman" includes those who served in the “Military” and were released with gratuity after completing their engagement. The fourth respondent, an IMNS officer released in 2018 with gratuity, “squarely falls within this definition.”
The Court highlighted the policy’s aim, noting Punjab’s significant military contribution, with “the strength of army personnel from Punjab is about 89000 persons,” and stressed, “Effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces.” It dismissed the state’s reliance on Kendriya Sainik Board clarifications, stating, “The clarifications issued by the Board do not have a direct bearing on the Punjab Rules, 1982.”
To avoid injustice, the Court protected the appellant’s appointment, observing, “it will cause great injustice to her if her appointment is cancelled or set aside at this point in time,” and directed the fourth respondent’s appointment with notional benefits but no backwages, ensuring “the appointment of respondent No. 4 will not result in automatic termination of appellant’s service.”
The Court emphasized the authority of Article 309 for state rules, an inclusive interpretation of "ex-servicemen," and equitable balancing of statutory rights, upholding the High Court’s ruling.
The decision of the Court:
The civil appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming the judgment of the High Court. Directions issued by the High Court were upheld, and all pending applications were disposed of. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Title: Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.
Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5235 OF 2025
Citation: 2025 Latest Caselaw 369 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Vardhman Kaushik
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Nupur Kumar [R-1, 2 & 3] and Adv. Nishanth Patil[R-4]
Read Judgment @latestlaws.com, click here
Picture Source :
