NARENDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 21-07-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARENDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
JULY 21, 1988 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.) 
Civil Services: Uttar Pradesh Non- Technical (class II) Services 
(Reservation of vacancies for demobilised officers) Rules 1973/U.P. 
Non-Technical (class II/Group B) Services (Appointment of Demo-
bilised Officers) Rules, 1980-Rules 1, 3 and 6/Rule 5-Demobilised 
C 
Officers from armed forces recruited in Civil Service-Seriiority-
Period bel:Ween demobilisation and recruitment ta Civil Service-
Computation of. 
·The appellants have been appointed in the U.P. Civil Service as 
D 
direct recruits on the basis of competitive examination held by the 
U_P. Service Commission. They are governed by the U.P. Civil Service 
(Execntive Branch) Rules, 1941. The respondents were recruited under 
the U.P. Non-Technical (Class-II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies 
for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973 and/or U.P. Non-Technical 
.Ill 
(Class-II/Group 'B') Services (Appointment of Demobilised Officers) 
E 
Rules, 1980. They were either Emergency Commissioned Officers or 
Short Service Commissioned Officers of the armed forces. They were 
demobilised from the armed forces in or about 1968. In order to 
rehabilitate such persons who rendered services to the country during 
the operatiOn of the emergency when the nation's security was in peril 
,..
doe to aggression, the 1973 Rules were framed under the proviso to 
F 
Art. 309 of the Constitution oflndia. 
In 1976, a seniority list was prepared showing the respondents as 
seniors to the appellants on the basis of their service in the armed forces 
and the gaps between their discharge and recruitment in civil service. 
Similar list was prepared in 1980 as well. Aggrieved by'this, the appel-
G 
lants moved two writ petitions before the High Court challenging the 
validity of the 1973 Rules as also the 1980 Rules. The High Court held 
that these Rules were legal and valid and upheld the validity of the 
impugned seniority list. These two appeals by special leave are.against 
the High Court judgment. 
H 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the High 
574 
•)" 
-.\ 
~~ ., 
='1 
.. 
' 
~ 
t 
~:. 
N.N. PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. 
575 
Court's interpretation of Rule 6 of the 197J Rules relating to seniority 
and pay was in excess of the relief intended hJ..be granted by the rule. It 
was also urged that when a candidate who was in the armed forces 
joined civil service, the assumption· should be that he•had entered the 
civil service at the second opportunity of competing for the recruitment, 
but no other period including that between the discharge and recruit-
ment would be taken into account for the purpose of computing his 
seniority. 
The contention of the Respondents was that since only ten per cent 
of the vacancies were reserved for war service candidates, it was dif-
ficult for thelD to get a chance within a reasonable time after their 
discharge from war service and it would be quite consistent with rules 
of natural justice to take into account the interregnum between the date 
of discharge and the date of recruitment in civil service. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was right in holding that the 1973 
Rules as also the 1980 Rules are quite legal and valid. However, under 
Rule 6 of the 1973 Rules or Rule 5 of the 1980 Rules, only a reasonable 
period of three years for taking the examination and the time taken 
for recruitment or posting would be taken into consideration for the 
purpose of computing seniority and pay. [5820-E] 
1.2. Under Rule 6 of the 1973 Rules, the recruitment of a war 
service candidate will be assumed to have been made in the year in 
which he had the second opportunity of competing for such recruit-
ment, the first being on attaining the minimum age to compete. It does 
not provide for the period between demobilisation and recruitment of a 
war service candidate in the civil service. Nor does it forbid considera-
lion of such period. It cannot, however, he denied that after the dis-
charge from war service, there will be some lapse of time for the 
recruitment of a candidate in the Provincial Civil Service. There is a 
question of competing in the examination. Though Rule 6 does not pro-
vide for any gap to be taken into consideration, it is apparent that some 
reasonable period has to be allowed to a candidate to enable him to avail 
himself of the opportunity of appearing at the competitive e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.