Case title: State of H.P. and another Vs. Jai Ram Kaundal
Case No.: L.P.A. No. 126 of 2015
Decided on: 21.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice, Hon’ble Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The conflict arose because the respondent, an ex-serviceman belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, claimed deemed absorption against a post advertised for ex-servicemen in 1996. However, he had already accepted and joined a position meant for the Scheduled Caste category in 1993. The State rejected his claim based on the instructions dated 21.07.1982, the instructions state that once an ex-serviceman has been considered against the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe quota, he cannot claim any benefit of being an ex-serviceman on a later date as his selection would be counted against the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe slots. These instructions were in force at the time of the respondent’s appointment as a Medical Officer (Dental) in the Scheduled Caste category on 31.05.1993 and governed his appointment..
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The case also involved the Ex-servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985, which stipulate that the benefit of approved military service for fixation of pay and seniority under these rules is admissible to an ex-serviceman only when appointed against a post reserved for ex-servicemen.
Additionally, the court considered the Department of Personnel Instructions dated 21.07.1982, which outlined guidelines on reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and ex-servicemen, impacting the respondent’s claim for deemed absorption against a post advertised in 1996.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellants contended that there was no statutory provision, rule, or notification that could confer automatic deemed absorption or appointment of the respondent as an ex-serviceman (SC) against the post advertised on 31.10.1996. They argued that the respondent had accepted the appointment as a Medical Officer (Dental) against the post meant for the Scheduled Caste category in 1993 and joined his duties accordingly. The appellants maintained that The respondent’s claim for deemed absorption as an ex-serviceman (SC) against the post advertised in 1996 was not legally tenable.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondent contended that as an ex-serviceman, he should be deemed absorbed against the post of Medical Officer (Dental) for ex-servicemen (SC) advertised in 1996. He argued that his past Army service entitled him to benefits, and he requested immediate absorption based on his ex-serviceman status. The respondent’s contention was that he should be considered for the post advertised in 1996 to avail the benefits of his military service.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court analyzed the respondent’s claim for deemed absorption against the post advertised in 1996 in light of the legal provisions and instructions applicable to the case. It noted that the respondent had accepted the appointment as a Medical Officer (Dental) against the post advertised for Scheduled Caste category in 1993 and had joined duties accordingly. The court found no statutory provision or rule that could confer automatic deemed absorption as an ex-serviceman against the post advertised in 1996.
Based on the facts presented and the legal provisions, the court concluded that the respondent’s claim for deemed absorption against the post advertised in 1996 was not tenable. The court emphasized that the respondent had already accepted and joined the position meant for the Scheduled Caste category in 1993, and therefore, could not lay claim to deemed absorption against the post advertised for ex-servicemen in 1996. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking deemed appointment as an ex-serviceman from 31.10.1996.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
