Civil Appeal Nos
973 74 of 1985
From the Judgment and order dated 1571983 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition Nos
3532 of 1979  357 of 1981
Dr LM Singhvi KR Nagaraja RS Hegde and C Mukhopadhyay for the Appellants
AD Singh Mrs section Dikshit AK Gupta Raju Ramachandaran and BS Chauhan for the Respondents
Subhash Chandra Respondent No 34 in person
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
These two appeals by special leave involve the interpretation of the Uttar Pradesh Non Technical Class II Services Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised officers Rules 1973 hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Rules  and the Uttar Pradesh Non Technical Class IIGroup B  Services Appointment of Demobilised officers Rules 1980 hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Rules  relating to the seniority of the appellants vis a vis the private respondents
577 The appellants have all been appointed in the Provincial Civil Service of the State of Uttar Pradesh as direct recruits on the basis of competitive examinations held by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
The appointments of the appellants were made under the UP Civil Service Executive Branch Rules 1941 framed under section 2411b of the Government of India Act 1935 hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules 
The respondents were recruited under the 1973 Rules andor the 1980 Rules
The respondents were either Emergency Commissioned officers or the Short Service Commissioned officers of the armed forces of the Union of India and were commissioned on or before November 1 1962 during the Indo Chinese war
They were demobilised from armed forces in or about 1968
These respondents therefore rendered services to the country during the operation of the emergency when the nation s security was in peril due to external aggression
In order to rehabilitate such persons and to ensure them that in civil life after the cessation of emergency they were not to suffer for rendering services to the nation and with a view to putting the respondents at par with other persons the 1973 Rules were framed by the Governor of UP in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India
Rule 13 of the 1973 Rules provide that they shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of their commencement
Rule 3 inter alia provides for the reservation of ten per cent of the permanent vacancies in all Non Technical Class II Services to be filled substantively by direct recruitment through competitive examination in any year
Rule 6 relating to seniority and pay which is important for the purpose of these appeals is extracted below R6
Seniority and pay 1 Seniority and pay of candidates appointed against the vacancies reserved under sub rule 1 of rule 3 shall be determined on the assumption that they entered the service concerned at their second opportunity of competing for recruitment and they shall be assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidates of the relevant competitive examination Provided that any such candidate who had two opportunities before the date of his joining the training 578 prior to his commission whether he actually availed any A such opportunity or not shall be assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidates of the first competitive examination held after the said date
Explanation The year of a candidate s second opportunity will be determined by the date of his birth in relation to the prescribed minimum age for competing for recruitment to the service
2 Seniority inter se of candidates who are appointed against vacancies reserved under sub rule 1 of rule 3 and allotted to a particular year shall be determined according to the merit list prepared by the Ayog on the basis of the results of their performance at the examination
3 All candidates appointed against vacancies reserved under sub rule 1 of rule 3 and allotted to any particular year shall rank below the candidates who were successful at the competitive examination held for recruitment to the service in that year
4 The pay of candidates appointed against vacancies referred to in sub rule 3 of rule 3 shall also be determined in the same manner as indicated in sub rule 1 of this rule but their seniority shall be determined in accordance with the foregoing sub rules only if and at the point of time when they are appointed substantively against permanent vacancies
 For the purpose of seniority and pay rule 6 takes into account the period of war service rendered by a candidate who after his demobilisation from such service successfully competes in the relevant examination which is in the present case the Provincial Civil Service Examination
Under Rule 6 when such a candidate is recruited after his successfully competing in the relevant examination it will be assumed that he had entered service with retrospective effect from the year in which he had the second opportunity of taking the relevant examination for his recruitment which he could not take on account of his having joined the service of the armed forces of the Union of India
So far as the actual period rendered by the respondents in the 579 armed forces during the emergency is concerned there is no dispute that such period shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the seniority and pay
The grievance of the appellants is that although there were long gaps between the dates of demobilisation and the dates of recruitment of the respondents the State of Uttar Pradesh had in computing the seniority of the respondents taken into consideration not only the period during which the respondents were in the services of the armed forces but also such long gaps
It is pointed out by the appellants that in the cases of one or two respondents the gaps were even of about 11 years and these long gaps had been taken into account in computing their seniority
As a result of such computation the respondents after their appointments were placed above the appellants although the appellants were recruited to the Provincial Civil Service under the Service Rules long before the respondents were recruited
If such gaps are excluded from consideration the appellants will be seniors to the respondents
It is also alleged by the appellants that several of the respondents after coming back from the army joined various services both Government and private services and had spent 3 to 10 years or more in those services before they were recruited under the 1973 Rules or 1980 Rules
In 1976 a seniority list was prepared showing the respondents seniors to the appellants on the basis of the period of their service in the armed forces and the gaps between their discharge and recruitment
In 1980 also a seniority list was prepared in like manner showing the appellants as juniors to the respondents
Being aggrieved by the 1976 seniority list the appellants moved two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court inter alia challenging the validity of the 1973 Rules and also 1980 Rules
The High Court overruled the contention of the appellants that the 1973 Rules and 1980 Rules were invalid being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and held that both these Rules were legal and valid
It however took the view that under rule 6 of the 1973 Rules or rule 5 of 1980 Rules which are verbatim the same the period during which the respondents had no employment or were employed elsewhere till recruitment in the Provincial Civil Service after competing in the relevant examination will be taken into account along with the period during which they were in the services of the armed forces for the purpose of computing their seniority in the Provincial Civil Service
Accordingly the High Court upheld the vali 580 dity of the impugned seniority list
Hence this appeal
It is urged by Dr Singhvi learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the interpretation given by the High Court of rule 6 of the 1973 Rules relating to seniority and pay is in excess of the relief intended to be granted by that rule
It is submitted that rule 6 was framed for the purpose of taking into consideration the period of service in the armed forces in computing the seniority of a candidate appointed in the Provincial Civil Service after competing in the relevant examination so that he does not suffer because of joining the armed forces
Rule 6 does not provide for taking into consideration the gap between the date of demobilisation of a candidate and the date on which he is appointed in the Provincial Civil Service after competing in the relevant examination
If such gaps are also taken into consideration it would be doing injustice to the appellants who have been appointed long before the respondents
Accordingly Dr Singhvi submits that when a candidate who was in the armed forces of the Union joined the Provincial Civil Service after his discharge from the armed forces it would be assumed that he had entered the Provincial Civil Service at the second opportunity of competing for the recruitment but no other period including that between the discharge and recruitment will be taken into account for the purpose of computing the seniority of such a candidate
on the other hand it is submitted by Mr Anil Dev Singh and Mr Gupta learned Counsel for the respondents and Mr Subhash Chandra respondent No 34 appearing in person that rule 6 does not prohibit either expressly or by necessary implication the taking into account of the period between demobilisation and recruitment in the Provincial Civil Service
It is submitted that not only the length of the war service but also such gaps should be considered for the purpose of computation of seniority
They submit that as only ten per cent of the vacancies were reserved for war service candidates it was difficult for such candidates to get a chance within a reasonable time after their discharge from war service and it would be quite consistent with rules of natural justice to take into account the interregnum between the date of discharge and the date of recruitment
Rule 6 only provides that after the discharge of a candidate from the armed forces and his subsequent appointment in civil service on the basis of competitive examination it will be assumed that he had joined the service at the second opportunity of competing for the recruitment
The second opportunity has been explained in the Expla 581 nation to rule 6
It provides that the year of a candidate s second opportunity will be determined by the date of his birth in relation to the prescribed minimum age for competing for recruitment to the service
For example if the minimum age for taking the competitive examination for recruitment is 21 years the first opportunity of a candidate will be in the year he attains that age and the second opportunity will be in the next year that is at the age of 22 years
Under rule 6 the recruitment of a war service candidate will be assumed to have been made in the year in which he had the second opportunity of competing for such recruitment
In other words the seniority of such a candidate will be computed on the basis that he had joined the civil service in the year of his second opportunity of competing for the recruitment
It is true that rule 6 does not provide for the period between demobilisation and recruitment of a war service candidate in the civil service
Nor does it forbid consideration of such period
It cannot however be deemed that after the discharge from war service there will be some lapse of time for the recruitment of a candidate in the Provincial Civil Service
Immediately after discharge one cannot get himself recruited in the Provincial Civil Service
There is a question of competing in the examination
Rule 6 does not provide for any gap to be taken into consideration yet it is apparent that some reasonable period has to be allowed to a candidate so as to enable him to avail himself of the opportunity of appearing at the competitive examination for his recruitment in the Provincial Civil Service
It cannot be gainsaid that to compete in the examination a candidate has to make preparation for that
Competitive examinations are generally difficult and in our opinion at least two years  time should be allowed to a candidate after his discharge for his preparation for the competitive examination and that will be his first opportunity
The second opportunity will arise in the next year that is in the third year of his discharge from the armed forces
In other words he should be allowed three years for competing in the relevant examination for recruitment in the civil service
Even after he becomes successful he is not recruited immediately
There is the question of availability of vacancies and posting
It is common knowledge that some time is taken for posting
On a proper construction of rule 6 the period spent by a candidate for competing in the examination which in our opinion will not be more than three years and the period of time taken for his recruitment or posting will also be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the 582 seniority of a war service candidate
Thus if a candidate is discharged in the year 1968 he should be given three years  time to avail himself of the opportunity of competing in the examination
Suppose he is successful in the examination held in 1971 and posted in 1973
In view of rule 6 he would be deemed to have entered service at the second opportunity of competing for recruitment and the entire period from the date of assumed entry in the service up to his recruitment in 1973 shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing seniority and pay
If however a candidate does not avail himself of the opportunity within three years of his discharge from war service or takes the examination but becomes unsuccessful the period between his discharge and subsequent recruitment will not be taken into account for the purpose of computing the seniority
Rule 6 should be given a reasonable interpretation
We do not find any reason to interpret rule 6 in a way which will be doing injustice to the appellants who have been recruited under the Service rules after competing successfully in the examination
We agree with the High Court that the 1973 Rules as also the 1980 Rules are quite legal and valid
We are however of the view that under rule 6 of the 1973 Rules or rule 5 of the 1980 Rules only a reasonable period namely the period of three years required for taking the examination and the time taken for recruitment or posting as discussed above along with the period of war service but no other period will be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the seniority and pay
The impugned seniority list prepared in 1976 and also that prepared subsequently in the year 1980 cannot be sustained as they have been prepared by taking into consideration the entire period between the discharge and the recruitment without any reservation for computing the seniority
For the reasons aforesaid we set aside the judgment of the High Court relating to the interpretation of rule 6 of the 1973 Rules
The impugned seniority lists of 1976 and 1980 are also quashed
The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to prepare the seniority list in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of six months from date
The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above
There will however be no order as to costs in either of these appeals
GN Appeals allowed


Summary:
The TV Serial Honi Anhoni  was being telecast by Doordarshan on every Thursday between 900 PM and 930 PM
A writ petition was filed by the Respondents stating that the telecast was not in public interest as it had the effect of confirming blind faiths superstitious beliefs in stories of ghosts rebirth precognition etc
and of spreading the unscientific way of thinking and blind beliefs
The High Court issued an interim order of injunction not to telecast and show episodes 12 and 13 of the serial
Aggrieved by the interim order the appellant producer of the said serial had come on appeal by special leave
This Court while granting special leave stayed the operation of the interim order passed by the High Court
The appellant contended that the said serial and in particular episodes 12 and 13 did not emphasise superstitious beliefs but on the contrary criticised and condemned superstition and blind faith and at the end of both the episodes a doctor and a professor gave a scientific explanation for the unusual occurrences portrayed therein and considered by people as supernatural phenomenon
It was also submitted that the viewers were told that they should search for scientific reason whenever any unusual occurrence takes place
Allowing the appeal 487  HELD1
Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is always very zealously guarded by this Court
It can no longer be disputed that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Doordarshan is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 191a of the Constitution of India which can be curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India
The right is similar to the right of a citizen to publish his views through any other media such as newspaper magazines advertisement hoardings etc
subject to the terms and conditions of the owners of the media
491B 490C E 2
The High Court was in error in the present case in issuing the interim order of injunction which is set aside
492B 31 The objection to the exhibition of the film was that it was likely to spread false or blind beliefs amongst the members of the public
The Respondents had not asserted any right conferred on them by any statute or acquired by them under a contract which entitled them to secure an order of temporary injunction
491C D 32 As alleged by the Respondents if all the episodes in the serial were offensive they could have approached the High Court as early as possible within the first two or three weeks after the commencement of the exhibition of the serial
But they waited till the exhibition of the 11th episode of the serial was over and then filed the petition
They had not produced any material apart from their own statements to show that the exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to the community
491E G 33 The High Court overlooked that the issue of an order of interim injunction in this case could infringe a fundamental right of the producer of the serial
In the absence of any prima facie evidence of grave prejudice that was likely to be caused to the public generally by the exhibition of the serial it was not just and proper to issue an order of temporary injunction
The exhibition of the serial in question was not likely to endanger public morality
In the circumstances of the case the balance of convenience lay in favour of the rejection of the prayer for interim injunction
491G H 492A This Court reserved its opinion on the question whether a citizen has a fundamental right to establish a private broadcasting station or television centre to be decided in an appropriate case 490E 488