STATE OF H.P. & ANR. versus ANJANA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 17-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 482 
A 
STATE OF H.P. & ANR. 
V. 
IANA DEVI & ORS. 
Civii Aopeal No.1617 of 20097 
MARCH 17, 2009 
(R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
SERVICE LAW: 
H1MACHAL PRADESH Ex-SERVICEMAN (RESERVATION OF VACANCIES 
C 
IN HIMACHAL PRADESH TECHNICAL SERVICES) RULES, 1985: 
Benefit of counting Military Service for purposes of 
seniority and pay fixation - Whether could be extended to 
those appointed prior to 3. 5. 1983 when the Rules were initially 
brought into force by giving option to accept any reserved 
D 
vacancy subsequent to their appointment - Held: Yes, if they 
were appointed to a reserved vacancy created under the 1985 
Rules or if appointed to a non-reserved vacancy after 
reservation came into effect on 3. 5. 1983 but exercised option 
E 
F 
G 
H 
to accept a reserved vacancy occurring subsequent to his 
vacancy. 
In this appeal the question that arose for 
consideration was whether the benefits of the Ex-
servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal 
Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985 should be 
extended to those appoint prior to 3.5.1983 by giving them 
an option to accept any reserved vacancy subsequent to 
their appointment so as to secure the benefit of counting 
their military service for purposes of seniority and pay 
fixation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The respondents were appointed against 
general category technical posts. When they were 
482 
: 
- --
STATE OF H.P. & ANR. V. ANJANA DEVI & ORS. 
483 
\. 
appointed reservation was available only in respect of A 
I 
non-technical direct recruitment posts. The benefit of 
counting the previous service rendered in the armed 
forces for the purpose of seniority and fixation of pay was 
available only to those appointed to non-technical 
services under reservation category under the 1972 Rules. s-
The benefit of reservation was extended to technical post 
~ 
firstly by an executive order dated 3.5.1983. Subsequently, 
the 1985 Rules were made under Article 309, providing 
for reservation even in technical posts and the said 1985 
Rules were given effect from 3.5.1983, which was the date c 
on which reservation was provided for posts in technical 
_, 
services by an executive order. Every ex-serviceman who 
i 
was recruited against general (non-reserved) vacancies 
in the non-technical services, was given an option to 
accept a reserved vacancy occurring subsequent to his D 
appointment by a circular dated 23.5.1975. This benefit 
was obviously i)ltended for those who were appointed to 
non-reserved posts, after the 1972 Rules came into force. 
Similarly, every ex-serviceman who was recruited against 
general (non-reserved) vacancies in technical services 
E 
was also given an option to accept a reserved vacancy 
occurring subsequent to his appointment by circular 
dated 11.12.1987. This option was restricted to those who 
were appointed to non-reserved posts on or after the date 
. when the 1985 Rules came into effect, that is, 3.5.1983. 
There is thus no discrimination much less hostile F 
discrimination as assumed by the Tribunal and the High 
Court. [Para 9) (488-D-H; 489-A-B] 
2.1 Discrimination presupposes classification of 
~ 
• 
similarly situated persons into different groups without G 
any reasonable basis, for extending dissimilar benefits 
or treatment. The technical services and non-technical 
services were clearly different. Persons appointed against 
reserved vacancies after reservation was provided, and 
persons appointed before introduction of reservation, H 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
clearly belong to different classes. As reservation was 
introduced for posts in technical services with effect from 
3.5.1983, ex-servicemen who were appointed against non-
reserved technical posts on or after 3.5.1983 were given 
the option to accept the subsequently arising reserved 
8 
vacancies. As persons appointed on or after 3.5.1983 and 
those appointed prior to 3.5.1983 are not of the same 'class', 
different yardsticks could be applied to them. The 
respondents could have complained of discrimination only 
if a benefit had been introduced retrospectively by fixing a 
cut off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homoge-
C neous class into two groups and subjecting them to different 
treatments. That is not the case here.[Para 1 OJ [489-C-F] 
2.2 Choice of the date 3.5.1983 for extension of benefit 
of option is not an arbitrary selection of a cut off date. It is 
0 
logical

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