H.P.& ANR. Vs. Anjana Devi & Ors.  INSC 545 (17 March 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1617 OF
2009 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.15064 of 2007) State of H.P. & Anr. ...
Appellant (s) Anjana Devi & Ors. ... Respondent (s)
granted. Heard learned counsel.
Rakesh Chand Sood (of whom respondents 1 to 3 are the legal representatives)
and Sukh Dev (fourth respondent) were in Naval service from 14.10.1966 to
31.10.1981 and 20.3.1969 to 31.9.1981 respectively.
their discharge/release, they joined the service of State Public Works
Department (Electrical Wing) as Junior Engineers with effect from 1.1.1983 and
15.1.1983. Their selection and appointment was under general category.
State made rules providing for reservation for demobilized armed force
personnel in Himachal State Non-Technical Services with effect from 28.3.1972
under Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the
Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 (`1972 Rules' for short).
Rule 3 provided for reservation of vacancies for released Armed Forces
Personnel in non-technical posts, to the extent of 25% for class-I posts, 30%
for class-II posts, and 20% for class-III and class-IV posts. The percentage of
reservation was subsequently modified.
thereof provided that service rendered in the armed forces shall count in full
towards seniority and fixation of pay under the state government in the post to
which he is first appointed against the vacancy under Rule 3. By a subsequent
circular dated 23.5.1975, it was reiterated that various concessions extended
by the 1972 Rules were admissible only in the case of released armed forces
personnel who were selected against reserved vacancies. It clarified that the
concessions cannot be extended to persons appointed to unreserved vacancies. It
however provided that where a released army personnel had qualified against a
non-reserved vacancy and had been appointed against a general un-reserved
vacancy in the first instance, he should be given an option (only at the time
of first 3 appointment) to accept a reserved vacancy even if it occurs
subsequent to his appointment so as to extend to them the benefit of
concessions-seniority and fixation of pay. The said 1972 Rules were amended
from time to time.
circular dated 3.5.1983, the state government notified its decision to
henceforth reserve 15% vacancies in all posts/services for ex-servicemen, not
only in non-technical services, but also in technical services (that is Medical
and Engineering Services). Thus, the reservation which was available only
against non-technical posts under the 1972 Rules, was available in regard to
technical posts also, with effect from 3.5.1983, by an executive order. The
said executive order (circular) was subsequently replaced by regular rules made
under Article 309, known as the Ex- Servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in the
Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules 1985 vide notification dated
19.9.1986. The 1985 Rules were initially brought into effect from the date of
the notification (19.9.1986) but subsequently, amended and given effect from
thereof provided for 15% of the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment in
Himachal Pradesh Services to be reserved for being filled by recruitment of
ex-servicemen. Rule 5 provided that the period of approved military service
shall be counted in the case of candidates appointed against 4 reserved
vacancies under the rules, for fixation of pay and seniority in that service at
the time of first civil appointment against reserved vacancy.
circular dated 11.12.1987, the state government applied the instructions
contained in the circular dated 23.5.1975 (referred to in para 3 above) to the
ex-servicemen appointed against un-reserved posts in technical services with
effect from the date the 1985 Rules came into force.
ex-servicemen appointed to general unreserved technical service vacancies,
after the 1985 Rules came into effect (3.5.1983), were given the option to
accept any reservation vacancy occurring subsequent to his appointment.
Chand Sood and Sukh Dev, as noticed above, were appointed against general
vacancies in a technical service on 1.1.1983 and 15.1.1983.
time of their appointment, there was no reservation for ex-servicemen in
technical services, which began only from 3.5.1983. Therefore, they were not
given the benefit of seniority and fixation of pay in terms of the circular
dated 3.5.1983 or the 1985 Rules which replaced the circular. Their 5
representation purporting to exercise option to accept a reserved vacancy and
seeking the relief of counting their approved military service for purposes of
fixation of pay and seniority was rejected by the Chief Engineer on 7.10.1992.
Feeling aggrieved, they approached the State Administrative Tribunal in OA
No.1555/1993. The Tribunal, by its order dated 26.9.2001 (by a majority of 2:1
on reference to Chairman on difference between two members) allowed the
application on the following terms :
had exercised their option while filing the representation for being considered
to the vacancies reserved for ex- servicemen pursuant to letter issued by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh dated May 23, 1975. Both the applicants shall be
deemed to have accepted the offer to be appointed against the vacancies
reserved for ex- servicemen occurring immediately after 3.5.1983 for
appointment/adjustment with all consequential benefits. In other words, both
the applicants shall be considered against the first vacancies occurred
immediately after 3.5.1983 falling immediately after the cut off date.
are accordingly directed to appoint/post the applicants against the aforesaid
vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen and to fix their pay had seniority in
accordance with the provisions of 1972 Rules."
said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the state government before the
High Court and the High Court has dismissed the writ petition on 2.4.2007. The
High Court was of the view that the circular dated 11.12.1987 restricting the
benefit to only those who were appointed on or after 3.5.1983, left out
ex-servicemen who were appointed before 3.5.1983 from the benefit of option,
thereby creating an impermissible classification without any rationale, between
ex-servicemen appointed 6 within the same technical service. The High Court
held that the classification excluding those appointed before 3.5.1983 was
arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 as it was not founded
on any intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object sought
to be achieved by the 1985 Rules.
question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the benefits of
1985 Rules should be extended to those who were appointed prior to 3.5.1983 by
giving them an option to accept any reserved vacancy occurring subsequent to
their appointment so as to secure the benefit of counting their military
service for purposes of seniority and pay fixation.
noticed above, the respondents were appointed against general category
technical posts. When they were appointed reservation was available only in
respect of non-technical direct recruitment posts. The benefit of counting the
previous service rendered in the armed forces for the purpose of seniority and
fixation of pay was available only to those appointed to non-technical services
under reservation category under the 1972 Rules. The benefit of reservation was
extended to technical post firstly by an executive order dated 3.5.1983.
Subsequently, the 1985 Rules were 7 made under Article 309, providing for
reservation even in technical posts and the said 1985 Rules were given effect
from 3.5.1983, which was the date on which reservation was provided for posts
in technical services by an executive order. Every ex-serviceman who was
recruited against general (non-reserved) vacancies in the non-technical
services, was given an option to accept a reserved vacancy occurring subsequent
to his appointment by a circular dated 23.5.1975. This benefit was obviously
intended for those who were appointed to non-reserved posts, after the 1972
Rules came into force.
every ex-serviceman who was recruited against general (non- reserved) vacancies
in technical services was also given an option to accept a reserved vacancy
occurring subsequent to his appointment by circular dated 11.12.1987. This
option was restricted to those who were appointed to non-reserved posts on or after
the date when the 1985 Rules came into effect, that is, 3.5.1983. There is thus
no discrimination much less hostile discrimination as assumed by the Tribunal
and the High Court.
10. In so
far as the technical service vacancies are concerned, as noticed above,
reservation was introduced for the first time with effect from 3.5.1983.
Discrimination presupposes classification of similarly situated persons into
different groups without any reasonable basis, for extending 8 dissimilar
benefits or treatment. The technical services and non-technical services were
clearly different. Persons appointed against reserved vacancies after
reservation was provided, and persons appointed before introduction of
reservation, clearly belong to different classes. As reservation was introduced
for posts in technical services with effect from 3.5.1983, ex-servicemen who
were appointed against non- reserved technical posts on or after 3.5.1983 were
given the option to accept the subsequently arising reserved vacancies. As persons
appointed on or after 3.5.1983 and those appointed prior to 3.5.1983 are not of
the same `class', different yardsticks could be applied to them. The
respondents could have complained of discrimination only if a benefit had been
introduced retrospectively by fixing a cut off date arbitrarily thereby
dividing a single homogeneous class into two groups and subjecting them to
different treatments. That is not the case here. Choice of the date 3.5.1983
for extension of benefit of option is not an arbitrary selection of a cut off
logical and rational, being the date on which reservation was made applicable
to technical services. Thus ex-servicemen appointed to technical services were
entitled to the benefits conferred by the 1985 Rules only if they were : (a)
appointed to a reserved vacancy created under the 1985 Rules; or (b) appointed
to a non-reserved vacancy after reservation came 9 into effect, that is on or
after 3.5.1983, but exercised the option to accept a reserved vacancy occurring
subsequent to his vacancy.
are of the view that the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are not in
accordance with law. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the orders
of the High Court and the Tribunal and dismiss the original applications.
_________________J. [R. V. Raveendran]
__________________J [Markandey Katju]
March 17, 2009.
Pages: 1 2 3