83/84/85$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2232/2011 & CM No.4770/2011 (for stay) SGT. VINAY KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate Versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-2&3. Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate AND + W.P.(C) 2233/2011 & CM No.4771/2011 (for stay) EX. SGT. VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate Versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-2&3. Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate AND + W.P.(C) 2234/2011 & CM No.4772/2011 (for stay) HAV. CLK VIRPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate Versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-2&3. Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate 1/3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 30.05.2011 1. The counsels for the respondents state and the counsel for the petitioner confirms that as far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2233/2011 viz. Ex. Sergeant Vinod Kumar is concerned, he has been issued the appointment letter and has joined the employment. Thus, W.P.(C) No.2233/2011 does not survive and is disposed of. 2. As far as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2232/2011 & W.P.(C) No.2234/2011 are concerned, the counsel for the respondents states that though the said petitioners as per their merit are entitled to appointment but appointment letters issued to them were cancelled owing to their not having joined in time and now a doubt has arisen as to whether they were at all entitled to apply in the category of “Ex Servicemen” or not. Reference in this regard is made to the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Service and Posts) Rules, 1979 as amended vide Notification dated 27th October, 1986 and as per which Rules, persons serving in the Armed Forces but who on retirement from service would come in the category of “Ex Servicemen” are permitted to apply for re-employment “one year before the completion of their specified term of engagement”. It is contended that though the said petitioners at the time of their appointment and now, had have less than one year left from their term of engagement but at the time of making the application for the post had more than one year of service left. 2/3 The counsel for the respondents has however also drawn attention to the order dated 19th September, 2008 of the Air Force providing for issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for applying for re-employment under the Rules aforesaid. 3. In this regard, it may be noticed that both the said petitioners along with their application had submitted the NOC from Air Force and Army respectively enabling them to apply in the category of Ex Servicemen. 4. I am of the opinion that the Armed Forces having issued the NOC required to be issued for enabling the petitioners to apply for re-employment in the category of Ex Servicemen and the Armed Forces being the competent authority to take a decision in this regard as to whether the petitioners notwithstanding having more than one year of service left were entitled to apply or not, the respondents need not entertain any doubt in this regard and ought to on the basis of the said NOC grant employment to the petitioners also. 5. Accordingly W.P.(C) No.2232/2011 & W.P.(C) No.2234/2011 are allowed. The orders of cancellation of appointment of the said petitioners impugned in the petitions are quashed / set aside. The respondents to issue appointment letters to the said petitioners within two weeks of today, with time of at least two months for joining. The petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MAY 30, 2011 „gsr‟ 3/3