Indian Military Nursing Service Personnel Not Excluded From Category Of “Ex-Servicemen” Under Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules: Supreme Court
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by an ex-serviceman, having worked as a Captain in the Medical Core of the Indian Army.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
Highlighting the fact that Indian Military Nursing Service has been constituted as a 'part of the Indian military' and 'part of the armed forces of the Union', the Supreme Court has held that there is no reason to exclude Indian Military Nursing Service personnel from the category of 'ex-servicemen' under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by an ex-serviceman, having worked as a Captain in the Medical Core of the Indian Army.
The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held, “Considering the intention of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to provide employment opportunities to those who served in the armed forces, and the language of Rule 2(c) that specifically includes Military personnel, we see no reason to exclude IMNS personnel from the category of “ex-servicemen”. Further, respondent no. 4 satisfies the requirements of Clause (iv) of Rule 2(c) as she was released from service upon completion of her engagement period and was also paid gratuity.”
Senior Advocate Vinay Kumar Garg represented the Appellant while D.A.G. Vivek Jain represented the Respondent.
Issue
The issue before the Bench was whether the recruitment advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission providing reservation for “ex-servicemen” would include personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service.
Factual Background
The appellant, an ex-serviceman, having worked as a Captain in the Medical Core of the Indian Army, was selected and appointed under the advertisement as Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch). She joined the service on December 9, 2022. The contesting party, fourth respondent, was released from IMNS and also applied under the same advertisement as an ‘ex-serviceman’, but her candidature was rejected by the State on the ground that she did not qualify under this category.
Her writ petition against the rejection of her candidature was dismissed by the single judge. The Division Bench, however, allowed the fourth respondent’s writ appeal by the impugned order and directed that the fourth respondent, if found meritorious, be appointed forthwith and be given notional benefits of service. Pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant, the High Court granted an interim order staying the judgment and order passed by the High Court. As such, the appellant continued in service.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that the Central Rules, 1979, will not apply to determine the eligibility under the “ex-servicemen” category for appointment under the advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The Bench noted that IMNS has been constituted as a “part of the Indian military” and “part of the armed forces of the Union”. Reference was also made to the judgment in Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India (2003) wherein it has been held that the IMNS is an auxiliary force of the Indian military and is a part of the Indian Army, but is a distinct and separate class in itself.
The Bench said, “Effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces. If the resettlement of veterans is neglected, the talented youth of the nation may not be motivated to join armed forces.” It was further explained by the Bench that Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 defines “ex-serviceman” as a person who has served in any rank, as a combatant or noncombatant, in the Naval, Military, or Air Force of the Union, and who has retired or been released from service in certain specified circumstances. Clause (iv) deals with persons who have been released from service after completing their period of engagement, otherwise than at their own request or by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency and have been given gratuity.
“Respondent no. 4 squarely falls within this definition. She served as a Short Service Commissioned officer in the IMNS. Rule 2(c) specifically includes “Military”, along with Navy and Air Force and as per the MNS Ordinance, 1943, and this Court’s decision in Jasbir Kaur (supra), the IMNS is a part of the Indian Military and armed forces of the Union”, it held.
It was noticed that the appellant and the fourth respondent were competing for the same post under this category. The appellant was appointed to the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in the Punjab Civil Services in 2022 and has uninterruptedly continued in service ever since."Considering the passage of time, and her appointment and continued service in the post, we are of the opinion that it will cause great injustice to her if her appointment is cancelled or set aside at this point. Her eligibility has not been doubted in any manner or at any time”, it said.
Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeal and held, “...we direct that respondent no. 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman and must be considered under the 'ex-servicemen' category. She is found to be meritorious. If she is otherwise eligible, she must be given an appointment. She will be entitled to notional benefits of service but will not be entitled to any backwages. We, however, clarify that the appointment of respondent No. 4 will not result in automatic termination of appellant’s service.”
Cause Title: Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 494)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Vinay Kumar Garg, Advocates Ankur Chhibber, Nikunj Arora, AOR Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates K S Rekhi, P S Vijayadharni, Arindam Sarin
Respondent: DAG Vivek Jain, AOR Nupur Kumar, Advocate Sadiq Noor, AOR Nishanth Patil