\ 1.^ I BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. ^cv3° / 2009 PETITIONER Arvind Kumar Mishra, son of late Shri C.B. Mishra, aged about 38 years, resident of Nature City, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^;'-- ^'^, ^c^ ^?"' ,. ^ 'yw ^.s^; ^: l^>^ ^^. ^^^] 1) State of Chhattisgarh - through the Secretary, General Administration Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (C.G.) 3) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (C.G.) V 4) Examination Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service ComiTiission, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^p^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5090 of 2009 Petitioner Respondents Versus Arvind Kumar Mishra State of C.G. and others .^} Post for pronouncement of order on/^-10-2011 Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge ,^:;^^ ^ •fl'....,.L. 1 'Sy"^v^s^. tl : %SiSS% j v. • ^^// ,?gy ^s^^ i" - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5090 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Arvind Kumar Mishra State of C.G. & Others Shri P.R. Patankar counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for the respondenVState. Shri B.D. Guru counsel for respondents 2 to 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER ( y.10.2011) Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned notice dated 17.08.09 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No. 2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for his main examination on the ground that the documents relating to Ex servicemen have notbeen submitted by him and that the marks obtained by him are below the cut off marks. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 22.9.2008 advertisement No. 10/2008 was published by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, inviting applications to participate in the preliminary examination for appointment on various posts prescribed under Rule 1 of Chhattisgarh State Services Examination Rules (hereinafter referred to as "Examination Rules" for convenience). Pursuant to the said advertisement, various candidates filled-in their forms and participated in the preliminary examination which was conducted on 1.2.2009 and the result whereofwas declared on 01.05.09. Petitioner's further case is that he was declared successful for the main examination and was informed accordingly by notice dated 18.05.09 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was further informed that his name was included in the tentative select list. For the main examination the petitioner was also sent a separate form to be filled-in in terms -of the conditions contained in the advertisement dated 20.09.08 'v-ask ^ ^/ <f^- (Annexure P-1) which was published on 22.09.08. Further case of the petitioner is that though he filled-in the complete form for the main examination under the category of ex servicemen, he has been declared ineligible vide Annexure P-5. In Annexure P-6 the name of the petitioner finds place at S. No. 84. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that ex-army men is defined in Annexure P-8 of the General Administration Department i.e (M.P. Ex servicemen (reservation of vacancies in the State Civil Services and Posts Class III and IV) Rules 1985. He further submits that the petitioner has served as Infantry Soldier from 27.2.1991 to 8.1.1993 and therefore he should have been given the benefit of reservation under the category of ex-servicemen. According to him, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected in an illegal manner without properly considering the Rules. He submits that the PSC should have given the definition of ex-servicemen in the advertisement itself and it cannot expect from the candidates to know the same. According to him, after working hard the petitioner was under the impression that he would get benefits of reservation but he has been denied the same. 4. On the other hand counsel for the respondenVPSC submits that the petitioner got himself released from Defence services of his own and therefore his case is not covered under the definition of ex-servicemen. He submits that in Annexure P-2 itself it is mentioned that the petitioner was discharged from service on compassionate ground on 8.1.1993. He submits that from Rules of 1985 it is apparent that ex-serviceman who has got himself reieased of his own, would not be treated as ex-serviceman. According to him, as per the notification of the Central Government (Annexure R/2-1) dated 1.7.1987 the petitioner does not come in the category of ex-serviceman. He further submits that the petitioner has not filed any document showing himself to be a candidate in the category of ex-serviceman as required under the terms of the advertisement. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. ^ !-«^. 1 ^ry- 6. This Court does not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that respondent/PSC should have treated the petitioner as ex-serviceman for the reason that from the document ofAnnexure P-2 filed by the petitioner it is clear that he got himself released from the defence services of his own and that being so his case does not fall within the category of ex-serviceman. In the document of Annexure P-2 it is categorically mentioned that the petitioner was discharged from the defence services on compassionate ground on 8.1.1993 which he had joined on 27.2.1991. Further, in the document ofAnnexure R-2/1 filed by the respondenVPSC definition of ex-serviceman has been which reads as under: "The eligibility of the retired Defence personnel to the status of Ex-serviceman is governed by the definition as laid down by the Department of Personnel and Training. The definition has been undergoing changes from time to time. The following is the broad categorization:- (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) Those released on or after 01 Jul 87. " An 'Ex-Serviceman' means a person, who has served in any rank whether as a combatant or non combatant in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union and (i) who retired from such service after earning his/her pension; or (ii) who has been released from such service on medical grounds attributable to military service or circumstances beyond his control and awarded medical or other disability pension; or (iii) who has been released; otherwise than on his own request from such service as a result of reduction in establishment..." 7. Furthermore, as per the unequivocal requirement of clause 29 of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) a candidate is required to submit the proper certificate of the competent authority of his/her being handicapped or his/her belonging to the ex-serviceman category as the case may be, along with the application form but in this case no such certificate is shown to have been submitted by the petitioner at the relevant time. Thus the petitioner has failed to demonstrate by way of proper certification of the competent authority that he belongs to the ex-serviceman category. ^:^ ^r/ Secondly, from clause 2 (c) (three) of the document of Annexure P-8 filed by the petitioner along with rejoinder it is clear that if a defence personnel after completing the continuous service of five years is released from service at his own request, shall be treated as ex-serviceman. In this case there is no dispute that the petitioner got released himself from defence service on his own request just after completing about two years. In the midst of all these shortcomings on the part of the petitioner, action of respondent/PSC in rejecting his candidature for the main examination appears to be fully justified and calls for no interference in this petition. 8. Consequently, the petition being without merit is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. —— Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge