Holding

The classification of ex‑servicemen who joined the armed forces during the Emergency for seniority benefits is a constitutionally valid intelligible differentia and does not violate Articles 14 or 16.

Summary

The case concerned the validity of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non‑Technical Services) Rules, 1972, which granted a 15% reservation for ex‑servicemen and allowed counting of their military service for seniority and pay. The petitioners, former army personnel appointed as Assistant District Attorneys, claimed that Rule 5(1) unjustly gave them seniority based on military service even though they did not meet the minimum educational qualifications at the deemed appointment date. The State and other respondents argued that the benefit should be limited to those who joined the armed forces during the period of Emergency (post‑1962) as they made a greater sacrifice. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view, holding that the rule’s distinction between emergency‑time and peacetime recruits is a valid intelligible classification under Articles 14 and 16, and that extending seniority benefits to all ex‑servicemen would disturb service efficiency. Consequently, the Court dismissed the civil appeals and the related special leave petition, affirming the rule’s constitutionality.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Rule 5(1) of the 1972 Rules granting seniority based on past military service to all ex‑servicemen
Whether the classification of ex‑servicemen based on joining during the Emergency is a valid distinction under Articles 14 and 16
Whether seniority benefits can be given to ex‑servicemen who did not possess the minimum qualifications at the deemed appointment date

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 309

Subjects

reservationex‑servicemenseniorityArticle 14Article 16Himachal Pradeshservice lawdemobilized armed forces personnel

Judgment

(2017] 9 S.C.R. 671

R. K. BARWALAND OTHERS A

v.

STATE OF HIMACHAL .PRADESH AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 11060of2017) B
AUGUST 25, 2017

[A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.[

Armed forces -,- Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel C
(ReservatiOn of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-
Technical Services) Rules, 1972 - 1:5(1) providing benefit of past
·service rendered in armed forces to ex-servicemen for the purpose
of fixation of seniority and pay in civil employment - Challenge to
- If such a benefit of counting past service rendered in the armed
forces was admissible only to those personnel who joined the jorces D
during the period of Emergency and not to ex-servicemen who had
joined the armed forces at the time of peace - Held: Rules giving
benefit of service in armed forces to those ex-servicemen who joined
during Emergency are pe~fectlyjustified - Call of service to nation
during war period is on a totally different jooting than joining army E
when the country is not facing any such foreign aggression - Persons
joining armed forces at that time, sacrificing their career, to be treated
as a separate class by extending tl1em the benefit in the matter o/
seniority as. well - However, those who joined the armed forces
during peace times, they do so in look out of a career and joined
such services of their own volition - They join the armed forces as F
a profession like any other - Thus, the two categories of ex-
servicemen form two separate classes and are not equal to each
other - Service law - Reservation.

Service law - Armed forces - Reservation - Benefit of past
service rendered in armed forces to ex-servicemen - Held: There G
exists an intelligible criterion for providing quota to ex-servicemen
- The object is to rehabilitate the ex-servicemen which can· be
achieved by providing reservations to them - Rules reserving a
particular quota, within reasonable limits does not ojfend the
provisions of Art.14 - Constitution of India -Art; 14. H
671
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A Service law - Seniority - Normal rnle of - Depprture fi·om -:
Held:' Seniority of an employee in service is to be determined with
reference to the date of his entry in the service, which is consistent
with the requiremer1t of Arts. 14 and 16 - There have to be very
weighty reasons for departure fimn this normal rule affixing the
seniority - Constiiution of India - Arts. 14, 16. .
B
Armed forces - Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel
(Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-
Technical Services) Rules, 1972 - Respondent, an ex~service man
appointed as peon against unreserved posi, denied benefit available
c to the ex-servicemen under the 1972 Rules - Respondent approached
Tribunal by filing 0.A. which was allowed - Writ petition by State,
dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The administrative
instructions issued by Government stated that when a released Army
Personnel has been appointed against the general un-reserved
vacancy in the first instance, he should be given an option at the
D time of first appointment to accept a reserved vacancy, even if it
occurs subsequent to his appointment '-- However, such an option
·was never provided to the respondent - Respondent cannot be .made
to suffer due to· reminiscence on part of the State Government - No'
error found in ·the judgment of High Court.
E
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: Civil Appeal Nos. 11060, 11061 and 11062 of 2017

1.1 There exists an intelligible criterion for providing quota
f to ex-servicemen. The object is to rehabilitate the ex-servicemen
which can be achieved by providing reser.vations to them.
Therefore, insofar as provision made in the Rules reserving a
particular quota, within reasonable limits is concerned that is
permitted and does not offend the provisions of Article 14 of the
Constitution. There is an intelligible differentia having nexus with
G the objective sought to be achieved. Likewise, provision in the
Rules for protecting the. pay is also held to be permissible. [Para
13) [686-F-G)

Ram Janam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
H (1994) 2 SCC 622 : [1994) 1 SCR 316 ; Chittranjan
R. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HJMACHAL 673
PRADESH AND OTHERS

· Singh Chima and Another v. State of Punjab and Others A
.(1997) 11 SCC 447 : [1997] 1 SCR 1010 ; Narendra
Nath Pandey and Other vs. State of U.P. and others
. AIR (1988) SC 1648 : (1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 574 -
relied on..

1.2 The provision in the Rules giving benefit of service in B
armed forces to those ex-servicemen who joined during
Emergency, is perfectly justified. It is based on the ratiol)ale ·
that sacrifice of such personnel in armed forces who joined the
service in war times is much more than those persons who joined
the armed forces during· peace period. Reasoning proceeds on c /.
the basis that when a state of Emergency is declared and the
nation is at war or facing the threat of aggression some young
persons out of a feeling of patriotism jo~n the armed forces
knowing fully well that they are putting their liv~s at stake. They
give up their chance to join civil service and live a comfortable
life in the main cities of the country. The grant of the b'enefit of D
serVice rendered by these ex-servicemen while in armed forces, .
is held to be valid when they were recruited during Emergency. . ·
However, such a benefit sflould not be availab.le to those .who
'join the armed force.S at a petfod when the co~ntry was not in
conflict with any other country/enemy country. The denial of E
benefit to such persons is on the premise tliat the.se persons
stan.d on a totally different footing from those who join service ·
during emergency period. These .persons weigh all the pros and
cons and after taking into consideration all factors· come to the
conclusion that they have a good future in the armed forces. They
join the armed forces as a profession like any other. (Para 141 F
[687-B-E]

1.3 The two categories of ex-servicemen form two separate
classes and are not equal to each other. Thus, latter category is
not entitled to counting of their service rendered in armed forces G
for the purpose of their seniority on joining the civilian post.
Following this dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the
High Court has read down the rule in-question by limiting the
benefit of seniority only to that class of ex-servicemen which
joined armed forces during the period of Emergency. (Para 151
[687-.F-GJ H
674 SUPREM}3 COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 2. The appellants are right in pointing out that those who
are joining military service even in 'peace times' are faced with
difficult situations of proxy war and have also to deal with
insurgency and terrorism. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that these military personnel are risking their llfe while
B dealing with the aforesaid difficult situations and, in fact, the·
casualties and fatalities of the soldiers are-on the rise. When
they leave the military service, as an ex-serviceman, they not
only get the benefit of appointment to the civilian post against
the quo'ta earmarked for them, they are also getting the benefit
of counting of military service when their pay is fixed on their
C appointment to the civilian post. However, benefit of counting of
military service rendered by these ex-servicemen for the purpose
of seniority cannot be extended to them. Such a benefit is
restricted only to those who joined armed forces during emergency
due to foreign aggression. The call of service to n~tion during
D war period is on a totally different footing than joining army when
the country is not facing any such foreign aggression. The Court
pointed out that persons who were commissioned in armed forces
when the nation was faced with foreign aggression and the cry of
the time was that persons should join armed forces to defend the
integrity and sovereignty of the nation. Many persons in such·
E situations are not inclined to join the armed forces and only those
with the feeling for the honour of the nation rise to such occasions.
For this reason, such persons joining armed forces at that time,
sacrificing their career, had to be treated as a separate class by
extending them the benefit in the matter of seniority as well.
F However, those who joined the armed forces otherwise, they do
so in, look out of_ a career and joined such services· of their own
volition. They are prepared for the normal risk in service of the
armed-forces. Therefore, benefit of service rendered in armed
forces cannot be extended to such a class for the purposes of
seniority. The circumstances pointed out by appellants are
G nothing but those risks which are very well known and prev;dent.
Fact remains that these persons joined the service to make their
career and on their own volition, exercising it as a matter of choice.
Their cases are, therefore, on a different footing altogether. After
all, if the benefit of armed force services rendered is extended to
each and every ex-serviceman for the purpose of seniority, it
H
j
''
R. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL -675
PRADESH AND OTHERS
,,
J
may result in far reachi11g implications. This Court cannot shy A f.
'

away from the normal rule of fixing the seniority, i.e. the seniority ·
o.f an officer in service is determined with reference to the date
of his entry in the service, which is co_nsistent. with the
requirement" of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There
have to -be very weighty reasons for departure from this rule. B
Otherwise, it may.disturb the equilibrium by making many direct
recruits junior to such ex-servicemen even when such direct
recruits joined the services in civil posts much earlier than the
ex-servicemen. Thus, an exceptional category carved out for
giving such a benefit only to those·who were commissioned in
· armed forces during war time cannot be extended to each and C
every ex-serviceman merely because he has served in armed
forces. [Para 27) [692-B-H; 693-A-D] · ·

Direct Recruitment Class 11 Engg. Officers Association
& Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 :
[1990] 2 SCR 900 ; State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. D
Aghore Nath DeyArfd Ors. 1993 sec (3) 371 : [1993]
2 SCR 919 - referred to.

3. In the impugned judgement, the High Court has pointed
out one more pertinent aspect. It is mentioned that the benefit E
of ir.tst service rendered in armed forces is even given to those
persons who did not even fulfil the minimum educational criteria
for the service ·Which is otherw_ise mandatory. Thus, grant of
benefit of military service even in respect ofthose who join the
armed forces during the emergency, is to be given only from the
date when they attaiited the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed F
in the Rules for th-e post· to which such persons· are appointed.
[Paras 30, 31) [694-B; 695-CJ ·

Civil Appeal No. 657 of 2016

4. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court G
would reveal that the administrative instructions issued by tlie
Government stated that when a released Army Personnel has
been appointed against the general un-reserved. vacancy in the
· first instance, he should be given an option at the time of first
'-
H

;
I.
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A appointment to accept a reserved vacancy, even if it occurs
subsequent to his appointment. However, such an option was
never provided to the respondent. The vacancy became available
after the appointment of respondent and since the State
Government was required to give option to the respondent at
B the time of initial appoint~ent to be considered against the post
reserved for ex-servicemen, which was not done, therefore,
respondent could not be made to suffer due to reminiscence on .
the part of the State Government. In the aforesaid factual
background, no error is found in the judgment of the High Court.
[Para 351 [696-C; 697-A-E)
c
Ex-Capt. K. C. Arora and Another v. State of Haryana
and Others (1984) 3 SCC 281 : [1984) 3 SCR 623 ;
State of H.P. v. P.D. Attri (1999) 3 SCC 217: 1199911
SCR 587 - referred to.

D Case Law Reference

[1994) 1 SCR 316 relied on Para9
(1997) 1 SCR 1010 . . relied .on Para 11
[1988) 1' Suppt SCR 574 relied on Para 12
E
[19841 3 SCR 623 referred to Para 22
(1993] 2 SCR 919 referred to Para 27
(19901 2 SCR 900 referred to Para 27
[1999) 1 SCR 587 referred to Para 29
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.I I 060
of2017.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.12.2008 of the High Court
ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No.488 of2001
G
WITH

Civil Appeal No.657 of2016, Civil Appeal Nos. I I 061 and 11062
of2017 and S.L.P. (C) No.22416 of2017.
H
R. K. BARWALAND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 677
· PRADESH AND OTHERS

Paramjeet Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, Vikas A
-viahajan, Vinod Shamm, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Rajeev Shanna,
'/aresh K. Sharma, Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Akshay K. Ghai, Maneesh
::::ilathak, Brahma Prakash, Balraj Dewan, Naresh K .. Sharma, ''.
:::::Hi minder. Lal, Ms.Rajni Ohri Lal, Anip Sachthey, Aditya Dhawan, ·
=Ms.Kiran Dhawan, Ms. Riya Sachthey, C.S. Ashri, Advs. for the B
-appearing parties. · · · ' · ·· · · · · .· ·

The Judgment of the Court was deliveted by
. .

A.k. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition
-(Civil) No~. 8710 of2009, 14361 of2009 and 19750 of201 l. c
2. In all these appeals, issue relates to the validity of'Demobilized
~rmed Forces Personne_l (Reservation of Vacancies in the.Himl!chal
Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, '1972 (hereinafte~ referred
to as the '1972 Rules'). These 1972.Rules provide for reservation to the
Released Indian Armed Forces Personnel in non-technical services in D
the State of Himachal Pradesh. Provisfon is also made in the
1972 Rules for conferring the benefit of counting approved military service
of suph Rel~ase.d Armed F6rces Personnel for the purpose of fixation of
thei~ seniority and pay in civ{l employmeni. It isthe valiclity of these
Rul_es \yhich is the subject matter in most of these appeals: However,
E
for. the sake of convenience and bettei· und~r~rl!ndirig," we
would take note of the events from Civil Appeal N~.q0.60 of 2017@
SLP (C) No. 8710 of2009. ,·

3. The appellants in these appeals are Released Armed Forces
Personnel. They were initially taken iri tlfeArmy where they servedfor F
few years and after serving for certain years, they were released
from"the Army. Still young and far away from the age of retirement
that is prescribed for civilian post, they applied for the post of
Assistant District Attorney in the State ofHimachal Pradesh (hereinafter
referred to as the 'State') and were successful in getting appointment
as Assistant District Attorneys witli the Department of Prosecution of G
the State. In terms of I 972 Rules, they were. accorded the benefit of
their approved military ·service for the purposes of fixation of their
pay and seniority as Assistant District Attorneys. Details of appointments
of these appellants are as under:
H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A
Appellant's Date of Date of Date of joining Date of Deemed date
Name Joining release from civil acquiring of
Amted Armed employmmt essential appointment
Forces and forces and (proscrution qualification
rank rank dcpartmmt)

B R.K. Batwal 24.04.1981 10.09.1997 28.12.2001 1991(LLB)+2 20.03.1989
(Appellant (As Airman) (As Sergeant) (Appointed as years (By giving 12
No. I) ADNAPP) experience years
antedated
seniority)

D.S. Parmar 21.06.1986 21.072001 19.10.2006 1991 (LLB) +2 09.09.1991
(Appellant (As Havaldar (As Nail>- (Appointed as years (By giving 15
·C No. 2) Clerk) Subedar) ADA/APP) experience years
antedated
seniority)

S.S. Pathania 16.01.1980 28.02.1999 18.11.2003 1997 (LLB) + 2 29.08.1986
(Appellant (As Seaman) (As Master (Appointed as years (By giving 17
No. 3) At Anns) ADNAPP) experience years
seniority)
D
N.S. Verma 08.01.1974 31.01.1989 20.09.1996 1984 (LLB) + 2 20.03.1989
(Appellant (As Seaman) (As Pcrty (Appointed as years (By giving 12
No.4) Officer) ADNAPPJ experience years
seniority)

As is clear from the aforesaid chart, though these appellap.ts joined
E
as Assistant District Attorneys with the State on later dates, they were
given the seniority from the back/earlier date with the application of
1972 Rules by counting their approved military service. Their pay was
also fixed accordingly.
4. At this stage, we may reproduce the relevant provisions of
F 1972 Rules. Primarily, we are concerned with Rules 3(1) and 5 (1).
The Preamble as well as the aforesaid Rules ofthe 1972 Rules read as
under:
"Preamble

G No. 11-76/71-GA-A-ln exercise of the powers conferred by
the proviso to Article 309 of th~ Constitution ofh1dia, and all other
powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor, Himachal
Pradesh, hereby makes the following Rules regulating the
reservation of vacancies in Himachal State, Non-Technical
· Services, for the Demobilised Emergency Commission Officers,
H
. . .. -.... , -~·"- ....

. . .

R. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL
., .. , . '
'
:- ' .'
679
PRADESH AND. OTHERS [A.K.
. SIKRI,
. . .
J.]. ·. ..
. "
Short Service Regular Commission Officers; Junior Commissioned A
Officers,· Non-Commissioned Officers and other· Ranks of the ·
Armed Forces of the Indian Union (hereinafter called the Released
Indian Arnled Forces Personnel), and the recruitment of such
officers/personnel on such vacancies, namely:
3. Reservation of vacancies: . B
(1) Fifteen percent vacancies ir; i·espect ofall posts, viz;,'Class I; II,
Ill andIV to be filled up through direct recruitment shall be reserved ·
for being filled up by the released Indian Armed Forces Personnel
or ex-servicemen who joined service or were commissioned on . . ~,

. or after the l" day of November, 1962 and are released any time c
thereafter.... " ·
5: Seniority and Pay:
(1) Only the period of approved military service rendered after
attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to the
service concerned by the candidates appointed against rest:rVed D
vacancies under the relevant rules, shall count towards fixation of
pay and seniority in that service. (This benefit shall however be
allowed at the time of first .civil emploY!llent only and it shall not
be admissible in subsequent appointment.s of ex-servicemen who
,are already employed under State/Central Govt. against reserved E
posts)."
I"' jf:
5.. It may also be mentioned her,e that the State Government has
,f!amed similar Rules conferring this kind of benefit on the Released
Armed Forces Personnel in Administrative Services as well.· These
Rules were framed in the year 1974 and are called the 'Demobilised F
Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vac.ancies iri the Himachal
Pradesh Administrative· Services) .Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to
as the '1974 Rules'). Though, the 1974 Rules are not the subject.matter
of these appeals, purpose for referring to these Rules is that the validity
of these Rules was also challenged and the matter had come up to this
Court, To that extent, reference to these Rules becomes relevant and G
the outcome of the proceedings would be mentioned at the appropriate
stage.
"' · 6. When the seniority of the appellants was fixed in the aforesaid
manner as gi~en in the table above, the result was that they were given
H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A seniority over and above some of those appointees who came in the
general category and even when they were appointed as Assistant District-
Attomeys, pr.ior in point of time. These persons, naturally, felt aggrieved
by this favourable treatment accorded to the appellants, Respondent
Nos. 3 to 5 herein as well as two other Assistant District Aitomeys,
B thus, approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original
Application (OA), inter alia, challenging the vires of Rule 5(1) of 1972
Rules insofar as it conferred benefit of counting of approved military
service upon the appellants towards fixation of their seniority. They
prayed for striking down Rule 5(1) to the extent it confers seniority upon
such Released Armed Forces Personnel with a specific prayer that
C deemed dates of appointment assigned to the appellants be declared as
illegal. They also prayed for issuance of directions to the effect that
these appellants be given seniority from the actual date of appointment
as Assistant District Attorneys or alternatively from the dates they
acq\lired eligibility for the post, viz., degree of LLB. Here, we may
mention that these appellants had obtained LL.B. degree later on, but
D they were law graduates as on the date when they applied for the post
of District Attorney and were eligible to be considered for the said post. ·
However, t]).e grievance of Respondent Nos. 3-5 was that seniority is
given to them, by counting military service, from the dates when they
\vere not law graduates and thus not even eligible for the post, for want
E ofrequisite qualifications, on that ?ate.
7. The State Administrative Tribunal, after hearing the parties,
dismissed the OA filed by the Respondent Nos. 3-5 vide judgement dated
January 12, 2001, thereby upholding the validity of Rule 5(1) of 1972
Rules.
F 8. These respondents challenged. the decision of the State
Administrative Tribunal by filing writ petitions in the High Court. The
High Court has, vide impugned judgment, partially struck down Rule
. 5(1) of the 1972 Rules. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ram
Janam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anotlter1, the High Court
G has held that such a benefit of counting past service rendered in the
armed forces would be admissible only to those personnel who had joined
the forces during the period of Emergency and would be inadmissible in
case of ex-servicemen who had joined the armed forces. at the time of
peace.
H '(1994) 2 sec 622
R. K. BARWALAND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 681
PRADESH AND OTHERS [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

9. The result of the aforesaid judgment of the High Court is that A
the appellants stand deprived of the period of service rendered b)' them
in armed forces for the purposes of seniority as they had not joined.the
said service during the period of emergency. Since,_ the High Court has
rested its decision by relying upon Ram Janam Sing/i 1. case and fe~
oth~r'cases to th~ same effect, before proceeding fu~her we would like \jl'
to discuss these Judgments and law laid down there!n. ·· · .
_10. Ram Janam Singlt 1 was a case wherein the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court was called into question. It pertained to U:P.
Non-Technical (Classen) Services (Reservation of Vacancies for
Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973. Under these Rules, benefit was
confined to those ex-servicemen who had joined service in the armed· C
forces during the period when the country was under the state of
emergency. One person who had joined serviCe in the armed forces
during the period when the Emergency was not in operation challenged
the non-grant of the benefit of Rules to him on the ground that there. was
no reasonable or rational basis for excluding the period fiomJanuary f 0, D
1969 when the Emergency was lifted till December 03, 1971 when the
same was re~imposed. The writ petition was allowed by the Allahab.ad
High Court. Thereafter, Ram Janarn Singh filed an appeal before the
Apex Court which was allowed. The Apex Court held as follows:-
,;l 0. From time to time controversyregardi~g inter se.seni6~·ity is · E
raised between persons recruited from, different sources .to the
same service. '1n past, notional seniority used.to be given to one
group of officers, purporting to mitigate their hardship or to rectify
any alleged wrong done to them in the process ofrecruitment or
promotion. Ultimately, it was realised that ifliberty is given to fix
seniority of an officer or group of officers belonging to a particular F
category with reference to a notional date, that will lead to great '·
uncertainty in public service. The date of entry into a particular
service was considered to be the most safe rule to follow while
determining t~e inter se (sic) one officer or the otl}er Or betWeen ·
(n~e group of officers and the other recruited from the differerit G
sources. After referring to different judgments of this Court, a
Constitution Bench in the case of Direct Recruitment Class Il
Engineering Officer.'s Association v. State of Maharashtra
[(1980) 2 SCC 715]: (AIR 1990 ·sc 1607), came to the same
. . ' ! .

H
.... .... -·· ··-
~· -~ -· ·~ ' . .. - -.

682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A conclusion. The same has been reiterated in the case of State of
WestBengalv.Aghore Nath Dev [(1993) 3 SCC 371]. It is now
almost settled that seniority of an officer in service is detennined
- with reference to the date of his entry in the service, which will
be consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Of course, if the circumstances so require a group
,,.B of persons can be treated a class separate frQm the rest, for any
preferential or beneficial treatment while fixing their seniority. But,
whether such, group of persons belong to a special class for any
special treatment, in matters of seniority has to be decided on
. objective consideration and on taking into account relevant factors
c · which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Normally, such classification should be by statutory rule or rules
framed under Article 209 of the Constitution. The far-reaching
· implication of such Rules need not be impressed, because they
purport to affect the seniority of persons, who are already in
service. For promotional posts, generally the rule regarding merit
D
and ability or seniority-cum-merit is flawed in most of the services.
As such the seniority of an employee in the: later case is material
, and relevant to further his career, which can be affected by factors,
which can be held to be reasonable and rational.
11. It appears that the framers of the Rules 1973 and 1980, while
E treating the persons, who had been commissioned on or after
November 1, 1962 but before January 10, 1968 and again on or
after December 03, 1971, took into account the circumstances
and the background in which such persons were commissioned in
Armed Forces, i.e., when the nation was faced with foreign
F aggressions and the cry of the time was that persons should join
Armed Forces to defend the integrity and sovereignty of the nation.
It is well-known that many persons in such situation are not inclined
to join Armed Forces and only those with feeling for the honour of
the nation rise to such occasions. In this background, if such
persons have been treated as a separate class for extending any
G benefit in the matter of seniority, none can make any grievance
· and their classification can be upheld even in the light of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
. 12. But, we fail to understand as to how persons, who joined
after the emergency was over, i.e., after January 10, 1968 and
H
R. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 683
PRADESH AND OTHERS [A.K. SIKRI, J.J

before December 03, 1971, when another emergency was imposed A
____..;,--., ·in view of the foreign aggression can be treated at par or on the
same level. It needs to be pointed out that such persons were in
look out of a career and joined the Armed Forces of their own
volition. It can be presumed that they were prepared for the
normal risk in the service of the Armed Forces. Those who joined ·B
Armed Forces after November 1, 1962 or December 3, 1971, not
only joined Armed forces but joined a war which was being fought
by the nation. If the benefits extended to such perso~s; who
were commissioned during national emergencies are extended
even to the members of the Armed Forces who joined during
normal times, members of the Civil services can make legitimate C
grievance that their seniority is being affected by persons recrnited
fo the service after they had entered in the said service without
there being any rational· basis for the same.
13. xxx xxx xxx
14. Can it be said that the persons who·hadjoined army after the D
declaration of emergency due to foreign aggression and those
who joined after the war came to an· end stand on the same footing?
Those who joined Army after revocation of emergency joined
army as a career. It is well known that many persons, who joined
army service during the foreign aggression co.uld have opted for E
other career or service. But the nation it~elf being under peril,
impelled by the spirit to serve the nation, they opted for joining
Army where then risk was writ large. No one can dispute that·
such persons formed a class by themselves and by Rules aforesaid
an attempt has been made to compensate those who returned
from war if they compete in different service. According to us. F
the plea that even persons. who joined army service after cessaion
of foreign aggression and revocation of emergency, have to be
treated like persons, who have joined army service during
emergency, due to foreign aggression is a futile plea and should
not have been accepted by the High Court. It need not be G
impressed that whenever any particular period spent in any other
· s~rvice by a person is added to the service to which such person
•"'! .

· joins later. it is bound to affect the seniority of person who have
already entered in the service. As such any period of earlier
service should be taken into account for determination of seniority
H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A in the later service only for some very compelling reasons, which
stand the test of reasonableness and on examination can be held
to be free from arbitrariness."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. This dictum was reiterated in Chittranjan Singh Chima and
B Another v. State offunjab and Others2 wherein this Court has held
that the person appointed to defence services under the normal
recruitment, before the proclamation of (External Emergency on
26.10.1962, were not covered under the expression "military service"
as defined in the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession)
c Rules, 1965. Hence, the appellants who were enrolled in Indian Air
Force on December 07, 1957 and September 03, 1959 respectively and
were released in 1974 on completion of 15 years of service, held not
entitled to the benefit of this service for seniority and other consequential
benefits because they were not appointed during emergency but in the
regular process.
D
12. Another case taken note of by the High Court is Nare11dra
Nath Pandey and Other vs. State of U.P. and others3• In this case,
Rule 6 of the aforesaid U.P. Rules of 1973 was being dealt with, the
relevant portion whereof is as under:

E "R. 6 Seniority and pay-
( l) Seniority and pay of candidates appointed against the vacancies
reserved under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, shall be determined on the
assumption that they entered the service concerned at their second
opportunity, of competing for recruitment, and they shall be
F
assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidates of
the relevant competitive examination."
The issue before the Court was as to whether such ex-service
personnel could be given the seniority even when they failed in
first attempt in securing civil employment and further whether the
benefit of service rendered in armed forces could be given even
G
if there was a significant time lag between release of such
personnel by the army and securing the civil employment.
Interpreting the aforesaid Rule, these questions were answered
in the following manner:
2 (1997) 11sec447
3
H AIR (1988) SC 1648
·,

R. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 685
PRADESH AND OTHERS [AK. SIKRI, J.]

"13. It is true that Rule 6 does not provide forthe period between A
the demobilisation and recruitment of a war service candidate in
the civil service. Nor does it forbid consideration of such period. ·'
It cannot, however, be denied that after the discharge from war
se1vice, there will be some lapse of time for the recrnitment of a
candidate in the Pi:_ovincial Civil Service .. There is a question of
competing in the examination. Rule 6 does not provide for any B
gap to be taken into consideration. yet it is apparent that some
reasonable period has to be allowed to a candidate so as to enable
him to avail himself--of the opportunity of appearing at the
competitive examination for his recrnitment in the Provincial Civil
Service. It cannot be gain said that to compete in the examination, C
a candidate has to make. preparation for that competitive
examinations are generally difficult and, in our opinion, at least
two years' time should be allowed to a candidate, after hi_s
discharge, for his preparation for the competitive examination and ·
that will arise in the next year, that is, in the third year of his D
discharge from the armed forces. In other words. he should be
all owed three years for competing in the relevant examination for
recruitment in tfie civil service.
14. Even after he becomes successful, he is not recruited
immediately. There is question of availability of vacancies.and
posting. It is common knowledge that some time is taken for E
posting. On a proper construction of Rule 6. the period spent by a
candidate for competition in the examination which. in our opinion. ·
will not be more than three years. and the period of time taken for
his recruitment or posting will also be taken into consideration for
the pw;pose of computing the senioritv of a war service candidate. F
Thus, if a candidate is discharged in the year 1968, he should be
. given three years' time to avail himself of the opportunity of
competing in the examination. Suppose, he is successful in the
examination in 1971 and posted in 1973. In view of Rule 6, he
would be deemed to have entered service at the second opportunity
of competing for recrnitment and the entire period from the date G
of assumed entry in the service up to his recruitment in 1973 shall
be taken into account for the purpose of computing seniority and
pay. If, however, a candidate does not avail himself of the
opportunity within three years ofhis discharge from war se1vice ~
H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A or takes the examination but not avail himself of the opportunity
within three years·ofhis discharge from war service or takes the
examination but becomes unsuccessful, the period between his
discharge and subsequent recruitment will not be taken into account
for the purpose of computing the seniority. Rule 6 should be given
a reasonable interpretation. We do not find any reason to interpret
B
Rule 6 in a way which will be doing injustice to the appellants who
have been recruited under the Service Rules after competing
successfully in the examination.
15. We agree with the High Court that the t973 Rules as also the
1980 Rules are quite legal and valid. We are, however, of the
c view that under Rule 6 of the 1973 Rules or Rule 5 of the 1980
Rules only a reasonable period, namely, the period of three years,
required for taking the examination and the time taken for
recruitment or posting, as discussed above, along with the period
ofwar service, but no other period, will be taken into consideration
D for the purpose of computing the seniority and pay. The impugned
seniority list prepared in 197 6 and also that prepared subsequently
in the year 1980 cannot be sustained, as they have been prepared
by taking into consideration the eritire period between the discharge
and the recruitment without any reservation for computing the
seniority.
E
(Emphasis Supplied)"
13. Dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments of this Court are
apparent and explicit. The Court has held that there exists an intelligible
criterion for providing quota to ex-servicemen. The object is to rehabilitate
F the ex-servicemen which can be achieved by providing reservations to
them. Therefore, insofar as provision made in the Rules reserving a
particular quota, within reasonable limits is concerned that is permitted
and does not offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.
There is an intelligible differentia having nexus with the objective sought
to be achieved. Likewise, provision in the Rules for protecting the pay is
G also held to be permissible.
14. The bone of contention, however, is in respect of grant of
benefit of seniority to these ex-servicemen on joining civilian service, by
counting the service rendered in the armed forces for the purpose of
seniority in the department which these ex-servicemen join. Here there
H is a conflict of interest that arises between those civilians who join a
R. K. BARWALAND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 687 .
PRADESH AND OTHERS [A.K. SI.KR!, J.)

particular service earlier than ex-servicemen but are rendered juniors to A
the ex-servicemen joining later for the reason that ex-servicemen are ·
benefited with their past service in the amied forces. As far as this
aspect is concerned, the judgments noted above have held that provision
in the Rules giving benefit of service in armed forces to.those ex-
servicemen who joined during Emergency, are perfectly justifie-d. It is
B
based on the rationale that sacrifice of such personnel in armed forces
who joined the service in war times is much more than those persons
who joined the armed forces during peace period: Reasoning proceeds
on the basis that when a state of Emergency is declared and the nation
is at war or facing the threat of aggression some young persons out of a
feeling of patriotism join the armed forces knowing fully well thatthey C
are putting their lives at stake. They give up their chance to join civil
service and live a comfortable life in the main cities of the country.
Drawing this distinction, this Court has granted the benefit of service
rendered by these ex-servicemen while in armed forces, is held to be
valid when they were recruited during Emergency. However, the Court D
has held t)!~t such abenefit should not be available to those who join the
armed forces at a period when the country was not in conflict witli any
other country/enemy country. The denial of benefit to such persons is
on the premise that these persons stand on a totally different footing
from those who join service during emergency period. These persons
weigh all the pros and cons and after taking into consideration all factors E
come to the conclusion that they have a good future in the armed forces.
They join the armed forces as a profession like any other.
15. On this premise, the Court has held that the two categories of
ex-servicemen formed two separate classes and are not equal to each
other. Thus, latter category is not entitled to counting of their service F
rendered in armed forces forthe purpose of their seniority on joining the
civilian post. Following this dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments,
the High Court has read down the rule in-question by limiting the benefit
of seniority only to that class of ex-servicemen which joined armed forces
·during the period of Emergency.
, G
16. This positiou is summed up by the High Court in the following
manner:
:"We are oftil:: view that such benefit should have been limited to
those persons who joined during the period of emergency only.
LL..
· Otherwise the Rules would become unconstitutional. The Apex H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Court in a number of cases including those quoted above has
clearly held that efficiency should not suffer on account of
rnservation. Reservation can be held to be reasonable as long as
.efficiency does not suffer. It is also well settled that the seniority
of an officer in service is determin!;!d with reference to the date
of entry in the service. This is consistent with Articles 14 & 16 of
B
the Constitution. Exceptions can be made only in special
circumstances. However, who are entitled to such benefits has
to be decided objectively. Therefore, the rules in this behalf must
be framed by taking into consideration the effect which such
reservation will have on efficiency of the service and the manner
c in which it will affect the seniority of persons who are already in
service.
We may approach this issue from another angle. The Apex Court
both in Ram Janam Singh~ case as well as in Chittranjan Singlr
Chima's case clearly held that the ex-serviceman who joined the
D armed forces during normalcy could not be equated with ex-
servicemen who joined the armed forces during emergency. The
Rule under challenge in fact equates these two. Therefore, two
unequals have been treated as equals. What may be valid or
rea~onable for the ex-servicemen who stand on higher pedestal,
i.e., ex-servicemen who joined during emergency may not be
E necessarily be valid or legal for those who stand on a lower footing.
The civil servants who are placed lower to such ex-servicemen
can genuinely complaint that they are the victims of arbitrary
. discrimination as clearly pointed out in Ram Ja11am Singh~ case.
Efficiency of the service is also bound to suffer if all ex-servicemen
F are given this benefit."
17. It becomes apparent from the aforesaid discussion that while·
deciding against the appellants, the High Court has followed the judgments
of this Court and the ratio has also been applied correctly. Therefore,
the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted with. Though, Mr.
G Paramjeet Singh Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the appellant had
tried to distinguish the decision of this Court in Ram Janam Singh and
Chittranjan Singh Chima cases, with the submission that the Rules in
those two cases were different, however, it is difficult to accept this
contention of the appellant having regard to the clear dicta and the ratio
behind the said judgments which has already been discussed above.
H
R.. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL. 689
PRADESH ANp OTHERS [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

18. Faced with this, another fervent plea made by the learned A
senior counsel is to the effect that going by the prevailing conditions in
the country and the manner in which armed forces personnel have to
perform their duties, there is hardly any difference between the
emergency and the peace time. It was submitted that post 1971 war,
Pakistan has waged proxy war against India which continues unabated. · B
Life risk and casualties of soldiers during peace time are more as
compared to the casualties in the war. Insurgency like conditions existed
earlier in Punjab and now continues in Kashmir Valley besides in North
Eastern States. Almost every day there are casualties of the personnel
·deployed in such affected areas. Besides fighting insurgency conditions
and terrorism, soldiers have to participate in various operations like C
Operation Vijay (Kar.gil Operation), Megadoot, Pawan, Prakaram,
Rakshak, Bombay Operation etc. which take place during non-emergency
period and risk to life and fatalities of soldiers during such operations is
also as high as during the wars.
19. In a nutshell, the submission is that the distinction which was D
drawn by this Court between those persons who joined armed forces in
peace time and those who joined during emergency is totally blurred.
Emphasis of Mr. Patwalia was that even during the so-called peace
time, armed forces are faced with warlike situations and, therefore, they
should now be treated at par with those ex-servicemen who joined the
military service during the period of emergency. On that basis, it was E
submitted that the cases decided· by this Court and referred to above
need reconsideration.
20. Insofar as official respondents, State of Himachal Pradesh
and Secretary Personnel to the Government of Himachal Pradesh
(Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) are coricerned, they have supported the F
arguments of the appellants. In fact, even State has challenged the ·
impugned judgment and its appeal is numbered as Civil Appeal No.
~-_of2017 (@SLP(Civil) No. 14361 of2009). These appeals
were primarily contested by the private respondents who are civilians
and were appointea to these posts on various dates and had filed the G
writ petition in the High Court which has been allowed by the High
Court. In addition, an intervention application is filed by some other
persons belonging to this very class and they have also supported the
impugned judgment.
H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 21. Insofar as private respondents, namely, Respondent nos. 4
and 5 as well as interveners are concerned, submission of the learned
counsel appearing on their behalf was that the judgment of the High
Court was in accord with the law laid down by this Court and, therefore,
there was no reason to interfere with the same. It was submitted that
the background in which 1972 Rules were framed had to be kept in
B mind. In this behalf, their submission was that China had attacked the
Nation on October 20, 1962 and proclamation of Emergency was made
on October 26, 1962. It was found that there was acute shortage of
young personnel in the Anned Forces who could defend the country and
accordingly a number of concessions were announced by the Central
C and the State Governments for those persons who joined these forces
including reservation of posts, counting of the period served in the military
for seniority and protection of pay and pension in the civil posts.
22. He further stated that after Jndo-China and lndo-Pak wars, a
review of the manpower required by the armed forces was made in the
D year 1968 and all those persons who were in excess were "Demobilised"
in a phased manner. To rehabilitate the demobilised person Central and
the State Governments had framed Rules. Demobilisation was onetime
operation and demobilisation was stopped by 197 5. It was pointed out
that the first such Rules were framed by Punjab as Punjab National
Emergency Concession Rules, 1965 and notified on July 20, 1965 as has
E been mentioned in Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora and Anotlrer Vs. State of
Haryana a11d Otlrers'.
23. These respondents, thus, supported the rationale by drawing
distinction between the two classes of ex-servicemen, namely, those
who had joined armed forces during Emergency and those who had not
F and it is only the first category which could be entitled to the benefit of
past service. lt was also submitted that if such a benefit of past service
is given, many such ex-servicemen would become entitled to seniority
from a date when they were not even possessing a degree in law or
having any experience or practice as a lawyer which is required for the
G post. It was also submitted that some of these ex-servicemen would be
getting seniority from the dates on which they were not even enrolled as
advocates with the Bar Council and had not completed experience of
three years' practice as advocates which could not be countenanced. It
was, thus, submitted that ifthe benefit under the 1972 Rules is extended
H '(1984)3 SCC281
R. K. BARWAL AND. OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL . 691
PRADESH AND OTHERS [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

to all ex-servicemen, it would, undoubtedly, affect ~he efficiency of A
service. Furthennore, the same would also cause heart burn and affect
the morale of the competent persons who joined the services much
earlier and are still placed much lower in seniority to the ex-servicemen,·
who invariably get seniority, from the date when they did not even possess
the bare minimum eligibility for appointment. It was submitted that Rule B
for reservation of vacancies may not be stretched so far as to incluc(e
seniority, pay-scale (Rule 5.1) and provision of vacancies to the
dependents and continued reservation of vacancies (Rule 3. l) of the
Demobilised Rules. Will these Rules made under Article 309 of the
Constitution stand the test of Article 16 of the Constitution to which
Article 309 is subject to? C
24. It was pointed out that a number of ex-servicemen had
superseded these respondents and interveners which had a cascading
effect on the service career of the direct recruits. It was specifically
pointed out that Sh. Purander Sharma was the topper of the batch and
was appointed as Assistant District Attorney on July 20, 1990 along with D ~"
the other direct recruits, intervener No. 2 Sh. Ravi Kant Kaushal while,
the ex-servicemen, Sh. Dharam Pal Sharda, Sh. Sansar Chand, Sh. Narain
Singh Ve:rma, Sh. Gian Chand Rana and Sh. R.K. Barwal were appointed
on much later dates. However, these ex-serVicemen were given the
benefit ofRule 5(1) of the 1972 Rules and were assigned a deemeddate
of appointment on a much earlier date. Consequently, Sh. Purander E
Sharma (Respondent No. 5) and other similar situate persons, were placed
much lower in the seniority to these ex-servicemen, who got seniority
from the date when they did not even possess the bare minimum eligibility
for appointment. It was emphasized that Sh. Purander. Sharma got
·promoted to the post of Deputy District Attorney in the year 2005 after f
serving as Assistant District Attorney for a period of more than 15 years
against minimum requirement of seven years, while, Sh; R.~. Sharma,
Sh. Dharam Pal Sharda, Sh. Sansar Chand, Sh. Narain Singh Verma.•
Sh. Gian Chand Rana and Sh. R.K. Barwal (Ex-servicemen) were
promoted thrice Within a period of 15 years from the date of their actual
appointments, i.e., on JUiy IO, 1998, June 01, 1994, June 14, 1993, G
September 20, 1996, May 26, 1999 and December 28, 2001 respectively..
25. On that basis, it was argued that there was no reason to take
a different view or refer the matter to a larger Bench for consideration.

H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 26. After giving our due consideration to the respective submissions
and minutely going through the judgments of this Court discussed above,
which have been relied upon by the High Court, we do not see any
reason to deviate therefrom nor do we find any justification in referring
the issue to the larger Bench.
B 27. No doubt, Mr. Patwalia is right in pointing out that those who
are joining military service even in 'peace times' are faced with difficult
situations of proxy war and have also to deal with insurgency and
terrorism. It is also a matter of common knowledge· that these military
personnel are risking their life while dealing with the aforesaid difficult
situations and, in fact, the casualties and fatalities of the soldiers are on
C the rise. When they leave the military service, as an ex-serviceman,
they not only get the benefit of appointment to the civilian post against
the quota earmarked for them, they are also getting the benefit of counting
of military service when their pay is fixed on their appointment to the
civHian post. However, benefit of counting of military service rendered
D by these ex-servicemen for the purpose of seniority cannot be extended
to them. Such a benefit is restricted by this Court only to those who
joined armed forces during emergency due to foreign aggression. This '
special category was carved irt the judgments referred to above. This
Court, while doing so, categorically and repeatedly held that the call of
service to nation during war period is on a totally different footing than
E joining army when the cow1try is not facing any such foreign aggression.
The Court pointed out that persons who were commissioned in armed
forces when the nation was faced with foreign aggression and the cry
of the time was that persons should join armed forces to defend the
integrity and sovereignty of the nation, it was stressed that many persons
F in such situations are not inclined to join the armed forces and only those
with the feeling for the honour of the nation rise to such occasions. For
this reason, such persons joining armed forces at that time, sacrificing
their career, had to be treated as a separate class by extending them the
benefit in the matter of seniority as well. However, those who joined the
. armed forces otherwise, they do so in look out of a career and joined
G such services of their own volition. They are prepared for the normal
risk in service of the anned forces. Therefore, benefit of service rendered
in armed forces cannot be extended to such a class for the purposes of
seniority. The circumstances pointed out by Mr. Patwalia are nothing
but those risks which are ve1y well known and prevalent. Fact remains
H
R. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 693
· PRADESH AND OTHERS [AK. SIKRI, J.]

that these persons joined the service to make their career and on their A
owri volition, exercising it as a matter of choice. Their cases are,
therefore, on a different footing altogether. Atler all, if the benefit of
armed force services rendered is extended to each. and every ex-
serviceman for the purpose of seniority, it may result in far reaching
implications .. Examples in this behalf are given by the private respondents, B
as noted above. This Court cru,not shy away from the normal rnle of
fixing the seniority, as enunciated in the cases of Direct Recruitment
Class 11 E11gineering Officer's Association as well as Aglioi'e Natlr
Dev, i.e. the seniority of an officer in service is determined with reference
to the date of his entry in the service, which is consistent with the
requirement of Articles 14and16 of the Constitution. There have to be C
very weighty reasons for departure from this rnle. Otherwise, it may
disturb the equilibrium by making many direct recruits junior to such ex-
servicemen even when such direct recruits joined the services in civil .
posts much earlier than the ex-servicemen. Thus, an exceptional category ·
carved out for giving such a benefit only to those who were commissioned D
in armed forces during war time cannot be extended to each and every
ex-serviceman merely because he has served in armed forces.
28. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that there is no
reason to deviate from the principle laid down by this Court in Ram ·
Janam Si11glr and Cliittranjan Singh Chima. This contention of tbe
appellant is, thus; rejected. E
29. Mr. Patwalia also submitted that this Court in its decision in
the ·case of State of H.P. vs. P.D. Attri5 has also held that each State
bas its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution.
One State is not bound to follow the Rules and Regulations applicable to
the employees of other State and it is not bound to follow every change F
brought in the Rules and Regulations in other State even if the same
were adopted initially. In this hue, it was submitted that presently the
percentage ofreservation of ex-service111en under the Rules of 1972 is
to the extent of 15% in respect .of all posts viz. class I, II, III and IV
(Rule 3(1) of 1972 Rules). The 1972 Rules apply to each and every G
department of State Government except the administrative services,
judiciary and technical services for which there are separate mies. There
. are approximately more than 2 lac employees in the State of H.P. who
are governed by the ~ 972 Rules. Thus, approximately there would be
'(1999)3 sec 211
H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 30,000 to 35,000 ex-servicemen who have been conferred the benefit of
seniority under the Rules of 1972.
This contention, however, needs to be rejected in view of the
detailed discussion carried out hereinabove.
30. In the impugned judgement, the High Court has pointed out
B one more pertinent aspect. It is mentioned that the benefit of past service
rendered in armed forces is even given to those persons who did not
even fulfil the minimum educational criteria for the service which is
otherwise mandatory. Discussion in this behalf is as follows:
"In our considered opinion, the State Government did not at all
c take into consideration these aspects of the matter. No material
has been placed on record to show whether such objective criteria
were followed while framing the Rules. We also find that in the
State ofHimachal Pradesh benefit of past service rendered in the
anned forces is even given to those persons who did not even
D fulfil the minimum educational criteria for the service which is
otherwise mandatory. Take for. example the present case.
According to the R&P Rules relating to District Atto1'neys, the
minimum eligibility criteria is a degree in law with three years
experience as a lawyer. Ex-servicemen who were not even
possessing a degree in Jaw nor having any experience of practice
E are being given the benefit of the past service rendered in the
Army. Immediately on joining the service they become senior to
persons who have come from the general category and joined
service much earlier to them. This is bound to affect the efficiency
in the service. This will also cause heart burning. Competent
F persons who joined from the general category are placed lower in
seniority to those who may have become eligible to even join
service much after they joined.
. xxx xxx xxx
A person who does not have the minimum educational qualification
G would not be even eligible to apply for the post. When the person
is not even eligible to apply for the post it does not stand to reason
that he can be given benefit of service rendered in the Army in
such a post. The purpose of the Rules is to rehabilitate the army
man. The rehabilitation is done by providing them reservation but
when it comes to giving them the benefit of seniority the Rule
H
R. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 695
PRADESH AND OTHERS [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

· becomes unconstitutional if the candidate being given the benefit A
is ineligible to hold the post. Even the State is not clear as to from
which date this benefit is to be given. In some cases like in the
case of respondent No. 4 and Sh. GC. Rana the benefit of past
service has been given only from the date these persons acquired
the minimum qualifications but in the cases of some other persons B
this benefit has been given regardless of this date. This practice
is also discriminatory and violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution
oflndia."
31. Thus, grant of benefit of military service even in respect of
those who join the anned forces during the emergency is to be given
only from the date when they attained the minimum eligibility criteria C
prescribed in the Rules for the post to which such persons are appointed.
32. Since we have already held that insofar as these appellants
are concerned, they are not entitled to get the period served in armed
forces counted for the purpose of seniority as Assistant District Attorney,
this question does not arise for consideration in these cases. D
33. As a result, Civil Appeal No. 11060 of2017 arising out of
SLP(C) 8710 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 11061 of 2017 arising out of
SLP(C) 14361 of2009 and Civil Appeal No.11069 of2017 arising out of
SLP(C) 197 SO of 2017 are dismissed.
E
34. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22416 of2017 (arising out
ofSLP(C) .... D. No. 20104 of2017J is also filed by ex-servicemen who
have joined Department of Prosecution of the State. They are five in
number. However, they have challenged earlier judgment of the High
Court, pronounced in Civil Writ No. 620 of2003 on November 16, 2007.
We do not se.e any reason to entertain this Special Leave Petition as it is F
filed after a period of 10 years. In any case, the petitioners herein have
raised the same issues which are raised by the appellants in the aforesaid
appeals and those appeals have been dismissed finding no merit therein.
Accordingly, this special leave petition is also dismissed both on limitation
as well as on merits. G
Civil Appeal No. 657 0(2016
35. Insofar as Civil Appeal No. 657 of 2016 is concerned, it is
filed by State ofHimachal Pradesh against the respondent who was an
ex-serviceman appointed as Peon against unreserved post with effect
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A from January 01, 1975. The issue in that case was different though he
was not given the benefit of Army service towards seniority, it was
primarily for the officer that the respondent was appointed against
unreserved post and on that basis the Government took the view that 11e
could not be given the benefit available to the ex-servicemen under the
B 1972 Rules. Respondent approached the Administrative Tribunal,
Himachal Pradesh and his O.A. was allowed. Against the judgment of
the Tribunal, State filed writ petition which has been dismissed by the
High Court vide judgment dated May 22, 2014 against which the aforesaid
appeal is preferred by the State. A perusal of the judgment of the High
Court would reveal that the administrative instmctions issued by the
C Government that when a released Army Personnel has been appointed
against the general un-reserved vacancy in the first instance, he should
be given an option at the time of first appointment to accept a reserved
vacancy, even if it occurs subsequent to his appointment. The High
Court noted that such an option was never provided to the respondent.
D The vacancy became available after the appointment of respondent as
Peon on January 0 I, 1975 and since the State Government was required
tci give option to the respondent at the time of initial appointment to be
considered against the post reserved for ex-servicemen, which was not
done and, therefore, respondent could not be made to suffer due to
reminiscence on the part of the State Government. In the aforesaid
E factual background, we do not find any error in the judgment of the High
Court and, therefore, dismiss, this appeal.

Divya Pandey Appeals dismissed.