LexIRWAN KOUR versus PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 806 : 2025 INSC 494 Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5235 of 2025) 16 April 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether recruitment advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission providing reservation for “ex-servicemen” would include personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service. Headnotes† Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 – rr.2(c), 3, 4 – Reservation in recruitment – Recruitment by the Punjab Public Service Commission – Reservation for “ex-servicemen”, if includes personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service-IMNS – Advertisement for recruitment to posts under the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch), wherein reservation provided for Ex-Servicemen – Appellant, an ex-servicemen having worked as Captain in the Medical Core of Indian Army, was appointed under the advertisement, however, the respondent released from IMNS, applied under the same advertisement as an ‘ex-serviceman’, but her candidature rejected on the ground that she did not qualify under this category – Writ petition by the respondent – Dismissed by the Single Judge, however allowed by the Division Bench – Interference with: Held: Not called for – Respondent no. 4 squarely falls within the definition of “ex-servicemen” defined in r.2(c) of the Punjab Rules – Considering the intention of the Punjab Rules to provide employment opportunities to those who served in the armed forces, and the language of r.2(c) that specifically includes Military personnel, no reason to exclude IMNS personnel from the category of “ex-servicemen” – Further, respondent no. 4 satisfies the requirements of Clause (iv) of r.2(c) as she was released from service upon completion of her service and was also paid gratuity – Kendriya Sainik Board’s purpose and objective is to * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 807 Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors. formulate, advise on, and implement resettlement and welfare policies for ex-servicemen and their dependents – While the Board may determine the eligibility for these schemes and policies, such determination does not have any bearing on the Rules formulated by the State Government to provide reservations to ex-servicemen – Clarifications issued by the Board do not have a direct bearing on the Punjab Rules – Appellant has uninterruptedly continued in service since appointment in 2022 – Considering the passage of time, and her appointment and continued service in the post, it would cause great injustice if her appointment is cancelled or set aside at this point in time – Her eligibility has not been doubted in any manner or at any time – Respondent no. 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman and must be considered under the “ex-servicemen” category – She is found to be meritorious, and if otherwise eligible, must be given an appointment. [Paras 17-22] Case Law Cited Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab [2002] 2 SCR 881 : (2002) 4 SCC 154; Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India [2003] Supp. 5 SCR 516 : (2003) 8 SCC 720 – referred to. List of Acts Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979; Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982; Government of India Act, 1935; Army Act, 1911; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943; Ex-servicemen; Indian Military Nursing Service; Reservation; Notional benefits of service; Recruitment; Indian army; Auxiliary force of Indian Military; Part of Indian Military; Serving the nation; Resettlement of ex-servicemen; Kendriya Sainik Board; Resettlement and welfare policies for ex-servicemen; Reservation to ex-servicemen; No automatic termination. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5235 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2024 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 636 of 2022 808 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv., Ankur Chhibber, Nikunj Arora, Vardhman Kaushik, K S Rekhi, Ms. Elaisha Asher, Mrs. P S Vijayadharni, Arindam Sarin. Advs. for the Respondents: Vivek Jain, D.A.G., Ms. Nupur Kumar, Sadiq Noor, Nishanth Patil, MV Mukunda. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short question arising for our consideration is whether th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.