C.W.P. No.20689 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.20689 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 23.11.2011 Pawan Kumar PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri J.P.Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner prays that the orders Annexures P-4 and P-6 be quashed by which he has been denied employment to the post of Constable on the premise that on the date when his case was to be considered i.e. 26.9.2008, the petitioner was serving in the Army and was thus ineligible to be considered against the quota of Ex-serviceman. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was serving in the Army since 29.6.1993 and he decided to seek his discharge from the service which order was made on his request on 25.8.2008 and he was ordered to be discharged with effect from 28.2.2009. The respondents had advertised 5456 posts of Constables C.W.P. No.20689 of 2010 -2- in the Haryana Police in July, 2008. He applied for the said post which consideration has been declined to him by rejecting his application on the ground that he continued to be in service of the Army on the relevant date, when the last date for submission of the application was prescribed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had sought no objection from the Military authorities at the time of making his application. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had been discharged from service on 28.2.2009 and the said order had been passed on 21.8.2008 and it is also not disputed that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable in July/August, 2008 and the last date for receipt of the application was 26.9.2008. The rules permit a person serving in the Army to seek employment in civil service within one year on being discharged from the military service, as is evident from Annexure P-7, the relevant portion of which is extracted here below :- “35. JCO/OR serving on regular engagement can, if they so desire, apply for appointments in Govt. undertakings, organizations and public of sector under the following circumstances : Within one year of the date of retirement which includes the period of leave pending retirement.” The petitioner having been discharged on 28.2.2009 and having applied in accordance with the afore-stated rules along with the No Objection Certificate issued by the military authorities, cannot be ousted from the process of employment in the civil services on the premise that on the date when he submitted the application, he was still an employee of the Army, as his discharge became effective from 28.2.2009 while the last date for receipt of applications was C.W.P. No.20689 of 2010 -3- 26.9.2008. The ostensible reasoning of the rules is to rehabilitate the Army personnel who seek a discharge from the military service for whatever reasons, provided they apply within one year of such a discharge. If the period mainfest from the facts of the case are to be seen, then the petitioner was very well within his rights to apply for the civil assignment, as the period of one year prescribed by the rules leaned in his favour. The interpretation of the respondents that on the last date of the receipt of the application, the petitioner continued to be in military service, would be erroneous, as the order concededly had been passed in August, 2008 even though permitting his discharge with effect from February, 2009. It was an event which had already taken place, but the effect of which was to be become operative from a subsequent date. Such provisions of law which are intended to benefit employment, are to be liberally interpreted and it has also to be kept in mind that human resource and experiences is a valuable asset not to be frittered away and the petitioner who belongs to the army with credible experience to his credit, should have been a welcome asset to the respondents and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Besides this, this Court has drawn some sustenance from the observations of this Court in C.W.P. No.5204 of 2009 titled Shri Niwas v. State of Haryana and others decided on 12.8.2009, wherein this Court in almost similar circumstances, observed as follows :- “The concessions which are available to an serviceman, cannot be denied to a person in service who is likely to acquire the status of an ex-serviceman by the time he is to be appointed. The issue was required to be appreciated by seeing C.W.P. No.20689 of 2010 -4- that by the time the appointment was to be made, the petitioner would be an ex-serviceman. The appointment of the petitioner was to be followed only if he was found suitable. His status as such relevantly was to be seen on the date of his appointment and not the date of consideration. The practice of considering person for appointment, who is on the verge of retirement is very common. The petitioner had submitted this application through proper channel for his resettlement as he was due for discharge from service on completion of his engagement. The respondents can be expected to take a fair stand rather than being rigid in their approach while holding the petitioner ineligible without properly appreciating the special purpose and requirement in the case of a soldier. The ground advanced to hold the petitioner ineligible for consideration are thus not considered valid and cannot be sustained.” For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders Annexures P-4 and P-6 are quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable. (MAHESH GROVER) November 23, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO