One-Year Discharge Period For Ex-Servicemen Quota Should Be Counted From Date Of Exam Results, Not From Last Date Of Application : Delhi HC

Hence, a candidate serving in the Armed Forces is eligible for appointment as an Assistant Commandant (AC) through the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs ACs) Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) if his assignment with the Armed Forces is due to be completed within one year from the date of declaration of the examination results, and not from the last date of application submission.

Background Facts

The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy in August 2004. He was later promoted to Havildar Major. In 2019, he applied for the CAPFs (ACs) Examination conducted by the UPSC, for recruitment as an Assistant Commandant.

He applied under the Ex-Serviceman (ESM) quota, relying on a certificate from his Commanding Officer. The certificate stated that his engagement with the Army was due to be completed by December 2020. He successfully cleared the written test, the physical tests, and the medical examination.

However, the petitioner's bag containing all his original documents was stolen, which caused him significant distress. He filed an FIR where he mistakenly mentioned that his ESM ID was stolen instead of the Serving Personnel Certificate. When he qualified the written exam, he applied for discharge from the Army. However, his discharge was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was finally released in March 2022.

Later, the UPSC issued him a show-cause notice in August 2021. It was alleged that he was ineligible for the ESM quota because he had not been discharged from the Army within one year of the last date for submitting the application (May 2020). The UPSC also accused him that he made false statements and suppressed the information. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled, and another candidate was recommended in his place.

Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

It was argued by the petitioner that his Commanding Officer had certified in April 2019 that his assignment with the Army was due to be completed by December 2020. He contended that the one-year period mentioned in the eligibility rules should be counted from the date when the examination results were declared, not from the last date of application.

It was further argued that his discharge was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He had applied for discharge immediately upon qualifying the written exam. He further explained that the mistake in the FIR about his ESM ID was an honest error because he was mentally traumatized after the theft of his bag.

On the other hand, it was argued by the UOI that Ex-servicemen (Re-employment) Rules, 1979, require that ESM candidate should be discharged from the Armed Forces within one year of the last date for submission of the application (19 May 2020). However, the petitioner was discharged on 31 March 2022. They further submitted that the petitioner had made contradictory statement in his application form and filed an incorrect FIR.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the DOPT OM of 1991, relied upon by the respondents, was irrelevant as it was based on an older version of the rules that had been superseded by the 2012 amendment.

It was further observed by the court that the rule was silent on the date from which the one-year period should be calculated, therefore, the interpretation in favour of the candidate should be accepted and not in the favour of administration. Hence, it was held by the Division Bench that the one-year period should be calculated from the date of the examination results, as the rule deals with appointment on the results of the examination. It was further held that the allegations of misstatement in FIR against the petitioner were unfair due to the circumstances of theft of the document.

However, the petitioner's appointment was not directly ordered by the Bench because the petitioner had failed to implead the candidate who was selected in his place. Therefore, it was unclear whether that ESM vacancy was still available.

Further, the cancellation of petitioner's candidature was set aside by the Division Bench. It was directed by the Bench that his appointment should be done if the vacancy was still available. It was also clarified that if appointment was done then he would be eligible to all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity of service and fixation of pay, but will not be entitled to any arrears of salary.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-candidate was partly allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Ghunna Ram v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 3427/2023 & CM APPL. 13237/2023

Counsel for the Petitioner : Avinash K Sharma, Ankur Vyas, R Abhishek and Garima Joshi, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondents : Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh, Vasu Agarwal, Lekh Raj Singh