IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 9339 of 2008. Decided on: 23.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Prem Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner had joined the Indian Army on 5.7.1963. He was discharged on 31.7.1991. He was offered appointment as Male Staff Nurse vide letter dated 23rd January, 1995. He made a representation on 3rd November, 1995 to consider his case against the ex-serviceman quota. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected. It is evident from the instructions issued on the subject contained in para 18.4.6 of Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol.-II that the option was to be sought by the employer whether the petitioner wanted to accept the reserved vacancy or not even if the same occurs subsequently. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Admittedly, this option has not been sought for from the petitioner by the employer. This is contrary to para 18.4.6 and further clarified vide latter dated 23rd May, 1975 as under:- “The instructions contained in General Administration Department letter No. 11-76/71-GA-A (Vol. II) dated 23rd May, 1975 provide that where a Released Army Personnel (an ex-serviceman) is appointed against an un-reserved vacancy in the first instance, he should be given an option (only at the time of first appointment) to accept a reserved vacancy even if it occurs subsequent to his appointment. In this connection doubts were expressed whether in a case where the Department did not ask for option immediately on first appointment the option given after two or three years of the date of appointment can be entertained. The instructions in question require the concerned Department to ask for option immediately on first appointment of an ex-serviceman against un-reserved post. In cases where the Department has erred in not asking for option in time, the incumbent is not at fault and even on his exercising option after two or three years, he has to be allowed the benefit as admissible under the General Administration Department’s instructions dated 23rd May, 1975.” Consequently, it was incumbent upon the employer to seek option of the petitioner to be considered against the post of ex-serviceman as may become available in future. 2. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner against any of the reserved post of ex-serviceman in the cadre of Male Staff Nurse occurring subsequently to his appointment, after seeking his option to be - 3 - considered against the post reserved for ex-serviceman. Needful be done within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. If the vacancy is available, he will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 23, 2010. (sck).