RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 05-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 910 
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4949 of 2011) 
JULY 5, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Armed Forces: Short Service Commissioned Officer 
commissioned in the Army during the normal period -
C Entitlement of, for the benefits which were given to the Army 
officers commissioned during the emergency when the nation 
was at war with the foreign enemy - Held: Not entitled - The 
persons who joined the Army service after cessation of the 
foreign aggression and revocation of emergency cannot be 
D treated like persons who have joined the Army during 
emergency due to foreign aggression and similar benefits 
cannot be given to such persons even by making rules -
Respondent No. 4 was Commissioned Officer during period 
1981-86 - He was appointed in 1994 in U.P. Provisional 
E Police service - His appointment was not against the 
vacancies reserved for the Emergency Commissioned Officer 
under the 1973 Rules - He, therefore, cannot claim benefit 
under 1973 Rules- The 1973 Rules was a temporary statute 
and it died its natural death on expiry thereof - The 1980 
F Rules neither repealed nor replaced the 1973 Rules - The 
1980 Rules were to have a limited application viz. 
regularisation of appointment of Demobilised Officers -
Consequently, persons who joined the Army after the 
emergency was over, cannot be given the benefit which was 
G extended to those persons who jo{ned the Army during 
emergency -
U. P. Non-technical (Class II) services 
(Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 
1973 -
r.3 -
U.P. Non-technical (Class II) services 
(Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 
1980. 
H 
910 
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH YADAV v. STATE OF 
911 
U.P. AND ORS. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 - Differential A 
treatment given to those who joined the Army during 
emergency cannot be termed as discriminatory and arbitrary. 
Interpretation of statutes: Once a statute expires by efflux 
of time, the question of giving effect to a right arising 8 
thereunder may not arise. . 
Service jurisprudence: Seniority list - Sanctity of - Held: 
In service jurisprudence there is immense sanctity of a final 
seniority list - The seniority list once published cannot be 
disturbed at the behest of person who chose not to challenge C 
it for four years - The sanctity of the seniority list must be 
maintained unless there are very compelling reasons to do 
so in order to do substantial justice - This is imperative to 
avoid unnecessary litigation and unrest and chaos in the 
services. 
D 
Respondent no.4 joined the Indian Army in 1981 as 
Short Service Commissioned Officer and was discharged 
from the Army in 1·sas. He was then appointed in 1994 as 
Deputy Superintendent of Police in Uttar Pradesh E 
Provincial Police Service. The benefit of back service in 
Indian Army was given to respondent no.4 under the 
Uttar Pradesh Non-technical (Class II/Group 'B') Services 
(Appointment of Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1980 as 
amended in 1990. The appellants were also direct recruits 
in the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Police Service and were 
F 
4 to 10 years senior to respondent no.4. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeals was whether a Short Service 
Commissioned Officer who was commissioned in the G 
Army during the normal period is entitled to certain 
benefits given to the Army. officers who were 
commissioned during the emergency when the nation 
was at war with the foreign enemy. 
H 
912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is well known that many persons who 
joined the Army service during the foreign aggression 
could have opted for other career or other softer career 
8 
or service but the nation itself being under peril, impelled 
by the spirit to serve the nation, they opted for joining the 
Army where the risk was little more. Such persons formed 
a class by themselves and by framing Rules an attempt 
had been made to compensate those who returned from 
C the war if they compete in different services. The persons 
who joined the Army service after cessation of the foreign 
aggression and revocation of emergency cannot be 
treated like persons who have joined the Army during 
emergency due to foreign aggression and similar benefits 
cannot be given to such persons even by making rules. 
D [Paras 8, 9) [920-D-F] 
Ex-Captain AS. Parmar and O

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