The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed Clause 8 of a 2020 Government Order that curtailed the reservation benefits available to ex-servicemen (Purva Sainik) in public employment. The impugned clause restricted the benefit of ex-servicemen status to a one-time use, stipulating that once an ex-serviceman secured civil employment through such reservation, he would be ineligible to claim it again.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay held that this restriction violated the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (“the 1993 Act”), which applies to Uttarakhand.
Referring to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, the Court noted that the term ‘Purva Sainik’ encompasses all individuals domiciled in Uttarakhand who:
(i) served in the Indian Armed Forces and retired with pension;
(ii) were medically discharged or released under circumstances beyond their control and granted pension;
(iii) were released for reasons other than a personal request; or
(iv) completed a specific period of service and were released with gratuity, excluding cases of dismissal or removal.
Importantly, the Court underscored that the Act does not impose any limitation on the number of times an ex-serviceman can avail reservation benefits. It observed, “An ex-serviceman does not cease to be one merely upon obtaining civil employment. He continues to retain his status, even after availing the benefits under a reserved category.” Therefore, any restriction imposed through executive instructions, in the absence of legislative backing, is invalid.
The petitioner in the case was an ex-serviceman who had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a government primary school under the ex-servicemen quota. He challenged Clause 8 of the Government Order dated 22.05.2020 on the ground that it arbitrarily deprived him of his legal right under the 1993 Act to claim reservation in future public employment.
The Court sided with the petitioner, emphasizing that the 1993 Act provides a statutory right to reservation for ex-servicemen in state services, up to 5% of vacancies, as per Section 3(1)(i). Nowhere does the Act stipulate that availing such benefit once would preclude future entitlements. Consequently, the State Government cannot, by mere executive instruction, restrict a benefit conferred by legislation.
Furthermore, the Bench held that Clause 8 created an “artificial classification” among ex-servicemen based solely on whether they had previously availed of the reservation. It stated that the legislation treats all ex-servicemen as a single, homogeneous class, and any further classification without statutory backing is impermissible. The executive cannot carve out sub-categories within this class through administrative orders.
Accordingly, the Court held that Clause 8 was discriminatory and contrary to the scheme of the 1993 Act. Allowing the writ petition, the Court struck down the impugned clause as unconstitutional and invalid.
Picture Source :
