Ex-Servicemen Reservation For Public Employment Is One-Time Benefit, Not Perpetual Device For Career Progression: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the policy rationale of reservation in appointment to ex-servicemen is to operate as a one-time benefit to facilitate re-employment, and not as a perpetual device for career progression.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain rejected the petition filed by an ex-servicemen, who was re-appointed as a Village Development Officer under the reserved category of Ex-Servicemen, seeking appointment as a Junior Accountant under the same category, claiming benefit of last proviso to Rule 2-A of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988.
Rule 2-A of the Rules provided that once an ex-servicemen was appointed on a post under Government, availing benefit of reservation, his ex-servicemen status for re-employment would cease.
Provided, that the Ex-servicemen who was re-employed on casual/contract/temporary/ad-hoc basis was not debarred from the benefit of this reservation.
It was the case of the petitioner that since he was appointed on a probation basis for two years, and was still not confirmed in service, he continued to be a temporary employees, and was entitled to the reservation.
Further, it was also argued that the pay scale of a VDO was lesser than that of a Junior Accountant.
On the contrary, the State argued that the petitioner was appointed as a VDO against a substantive vacancy on regular selection. Hence, even though he was undergoing probation, he could not be termed as a temporary employee.
After hearing the contentions, the Court framed the question, “whether a probationer appointed against a substantive vacancy under regular recruitment can still be treated as a temporary employee so as to continue to avail reservation benefits of Ex-serviceman in another recruitment.”
It was held that probation was not akin to temporary or casual appointment. Rather, it was an integral part of substantive appointment in public service.
“…the fact that during probation, he receives fixed remuneration and is not entitled to increments or certain service benefits, does not alter the legal character of his appointment. These are only incidents of probation and do not convert the substantive appointment into a temporary one.”
The Court further held that to accept petitioner's reliance of the proviso to Rule 2-A would lead to an anomalous situation wherein an employee who had secured regular appointment under one department continued to consume reserved opportunities, and would frustrate the object of reservation to extend benefit to unemployed ex-servicemen.
Furthermore, while rejecting the argument of pay scale, the Court held that once a person had secured regular appointment in public service, comparative attractiveness of another post did not entitle him to claim reservation which stood exhausted.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Narendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 323