Holding

IMNS personnel are "ex‑servicemen" within the meaning of Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex‑Servicemen Rules, 1982 and are therefore entitled to the reservation.

Summary

The Punjab Public Service Commission advertised vacancies for the Punjab Civil Service with a reservation for "ex‑servicemen". The appellant, a former Indian Army captain, was appointed under this reservation, while respondent No. 4, a former officer of the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS), was denied appointment on the ground that IMNS personnel were not "ex‑servicemen". The High Court held that the IMNS officer qualified for the reservation and directed her appointment, a decision stayed by the Supreme Court pending appeal. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "ex‑serviceman" in Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex‑Servicemen Rules, 1982 and the status of the IMNS under the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943. It concluded that IMNS is an auxiliary force of the Indian Military and its personnel fall within the "Military" category of the rule, satisfying clause (iv) and thus are eligible for reservation. The Court also rejected the contention that Kendriya Sainik Board clarifications could override the State Rules. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming respondent No. 4’s eligibility while leaving the appellant’s appointment undisturbed.

Issues considered

Whether personnel of the Indian Military Nursing Service qualify as "ex‑servicemen" under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex‑Servicemen Rules, 1982 for reservation purposes.
Whether clarifications issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board affect the interpretation of the State Rules concerning eligibility of IMNS personnel.

Legislation cited

Army Act, 1911
Constitution of Indias. Article 234, s. Article 309, s. Article 318, s. Article 372
Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979
Government of India Act, 1935
Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943s. Section 3, s. Section 4, s. Section 5, s. Section 9
Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982s. Rule 2(c), s. Rule 3, s. Rule 4

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether recruitment advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission providing reservation for “ex-servicemen” would include personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service. Headnotes† Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, Reservation in recruitment – Recruitment by the Punjab Public Service Commission – Reservation for “ex-servicemen”, if includes personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service-IMNS – Advertisement for recruitment to posts under the Punjab Civil Service

Subjects

Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943Ex-servicemenIndian Military Nursing ServiceReservationNotional benefits of serviceRecruitmentIndian armyAuxiliary force of Indian MilitaryPart of Indian MilitaryServing the nationResettlement of ex-servicemenKendriya Sainik BoardResettlement and welfare policies for ex-servicemenReservation to ex-servicemenNo automatic termination

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 806 : 2025 INSC 494

Irwan Kour
v.
Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5235 of 2025)
16 April 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether recruitment advertisement issued by the
Punjab Public Service Commission providing reservation for
“ex-servicemen” would include personnel from the Indian Military
Nursing Service.

Headnotes†
Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 – rr.2(c),
3, 4 – Reservation in recruitment – Recruitment by the Punjab
Public Service Commission – Reservation for “ex-servicemen”,
if includes personnel from the Indian Military Nursing
Service-IMNS – Advertisement for recruitment to posts under
the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch), wherein reservation
provided for Ex-Servicemen – Appellant, an ex-servicemen
having worked as Captain in the Medical Core of Indian Army,
was appointed under the advertisement, however, the respondent
released from IMNS, applied under the same advertisement as
an ‘ex-serviceman’, but her candidature rejected on the ground
that she did not qualify under this category – Writ petition by
the respondent – Dismissed by the Single Judge, however
allowed by the Division Bench – Interference with:
Held: Not called for – Respondent no. 4 squarely falls within
the definition of “ex-servicemen” defined in r.2(c) of the Punjab
Rules – Considering the intention of the Punjab Rules to provide
employment opportunities to those who served in the armed
forces, and the language of r.2(c) that specifically includes
Military personnel, no reason to exclude IMNS personnel from the
category of “ex-servicemen” – Further, respondent no. 4 satisfies
the requirements of Clause (iv) of r.2(c) as she was released
from service upon completion of her service and was also paid
gratuity – Kendriya Sainik Board’s purpose and objective is to
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 807

Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.

formulate, advise on, and implement resettlement and welfare
policies for ex-servicemen and their dependents – While the Board
may determine the eligibility for these schemes and policies, such
determination does not have any bearing on the Rules formulated
by the State Government to provide reservations to ex-servicemen –
Clarifications issued by the Board do not have a direct bearing
on the Punjab Rules – Appellant has uninterruptedly continued in
service since appointment in 2022 – Considering the passage of
time, and her appointment and continued service in the post, it
would cause great injustice if her appointment is cancelled or set
aside at this point in time – Her eligibility has not been doubted
in any manner or at any time – Respondent no. 4 qualifies as an
ex-serviceman and must be considered under the “ex-servicemen”
category – She is found to be meritorious, and if otherwise eligible,
must be given an appointment. [Paras 17-22]

Case Law Cited
Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab [2002] 2 SCR 881 : (2002)
4 SCC 154; Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India [2003] Supp. 5 SCR
516 : (2003) 8 SCC 720 – referred to.

List of Acts
Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts)
Rules, 1979; Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982;
Government of India Act, 1935; Army Act, 1911; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943; Ex-servicemen; Indian
Military Nursing Service; Reservation; Notional benefits of service;
Recruitment; Indian army; Auxiliary force of Indian Military; Part of
Indian Military; Serving the nation; Resettlement of ex-servicemen;
Kendriya Sainik Board; Resettlement and welfare policies for
ex-servicemen; Reservation to ex-servicemen; No automatic
termination.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5235 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 636 of 2022
808 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv., Ankur Chhibber, Nikunj Arora,
Vardhman Kaushik, K S Rekhi, Ms. Elaisha Asher, Mrs. P S
Vijayadharni, Arindam Sarin.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Vivek Jain, D.A.G., Ms. Nupur Kumar, Sadiq Noor, Nishanth Patil,
MV Mukunda.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The short question arising for our consideration is whether the
recruitment advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service
Commission inter alia providing reservation for “ex-servicemen”,
would include personnel from the Indian Military Nursing Service.1
3. The appellant, an ex-serviceman, having worked as Captain in
the Medical Core of Indian Army, was selected and appointed
under the advertisement as Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under
Training) in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch). She
joined service on 09.12.2022. The contesting party, respondent
no. 4, was released from IMNS and also applied under the same
advertisement as an ‘ex-serviceman’, but her candidature was
rejected by the State on 20.05.2021 on the ground that she does not
qualify under this category. Her writ petition against the rejection of
her candidature was dismissed by the learned single judge, holding
that IMNS personnel cannot claim reservation benefits under the
“ex-servicemen” category. This decision was based on the interpretation
of the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and
Posts) Rules, 1979.2 The division bench, however allowed respondent
no. 4’s writ appeal by the order impugned before us. It concluded

1 Hereinafter “IMNS”.
2 Hereinafter “Central Rules, 1979”.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 809

Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.

that the relevant rules governing the recruitment, i.e., the Punjab
Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 19823 do not disqualify persons
who have retired from or been released from the IMNS from claiming
the benefit available to ex-servicemen. Consequently, the High Court
directed that respondent no. 4, if found meritorious, be appointed
forthwith and be given notional benefits of service.
4. Pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant,
this Court granted an interim order staying the judgment and order
passed by the High Court and as such the appellant, appointed on
09.12.2022 is continuing in service.
5. We have heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. MV Mukunda for contesting
respondent no. 4, and Ms. Nupur Kumar for the State of Punjab.
6. Short and necessary facts are as follows. The Punjab Public
Service Commission issued an advertisement on 12.12.2020 inviting
applications for recruitment to number of posts under the Punjab Civil
Service (Executive Branch). Clause 2 of the advertisement provided
the number of vacancies as well as the posts for which reservation
is provided. This included reservation for Ex-Servicemen (ESM)
and Lineal Descendants of Ex-servicemen (LDESM) as provided for
under the Punjab Rules, 1982. Note (1)(b) of Clause 11 confines the
reservation only to residents of Punjab.
7. Rules 3 and 4 of the Punjab Rules, 1982 relate to the scope and extent
of their application and reservations provided. The relevant portion
of the said Rules are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“Rule 3. Extent of Application. - These rules shall apply
to all the State Civil Services and posts connected with the
affairs of the State of Punjab, except the Punjab Vidhan
Sabha Secretariat Service and the Punjab Superior Judicial
Service.
Rule 4. Reservation of Vacancies. (1) Subject to the
provision of rule 3, 13% of vacancies to be filled in by
direct appointment in all the State Civil Services and posts
connected with the affairs of the State of Punjab shall be
reserved for being filled in by recruitment of Ex-servicemen.”

3 Hereinafter “Punjab Rules, 1982”.
810 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

8. The reservation for ‘ex-servicemen’ under the advertisement must
be understood as per the definition in Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules,
1982, which is as under:
“2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise
requires ‘Armed Forces of the Union’ means the Naval,
Military and Air Forces of the Union of India;
…
(c)”Ex-serviceman” means a person who has served in
any rank, whether as a combatant or a non-combatant,
in the Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Union of India
(hereinafter referred to as the Armed Forces of the Union
of India), and who has, -
(i) retired or released from such service at his or
her own request after earning his or her pension; or
(ii) has been released from such service on
medical grounds attributable to military service or
circumstances beyond his control and awarded
medical or other disability pension; or
(iii) been released, otherwise than on his own
request, from such service as a result of reduction
in establishment; or
(iv) been released from such service after completing
the specific period of engagement otherwise than at
his own request or by way of dismissal or discharge
on account of misconduct or inefficiency and has
been given a gratuity; But does not include a person
who has served in the Defence Security Corps, the
General Reserve Engineering Force, the Lok Sahayak
Sena and the Para Military Forces, but includes
personnel of the Lok Sahayak Sena of the following
categories, namely:-
(i) pension holders for continuous embodied service.
(ii) persons with disability attributable to military
service; and
(iii) gallantry award winners
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 811

Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.

Explanation.—The persons serving in the Armed Forces
of the Union, who on retirement from service would come
under the category of ‘ex-serviceman’, may be permitted to
apply for re-employment one year before the completion of
the specified terms of engagement and avail themselves
of all concessions available to ex-servicemen but shall
not be permitted to leave the uniform until they complete
the specified terms of engagement in the Armed Forces
of the Union….”
9. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to clarify that the Central
Rules, 1979 do not apply to the facts of the present case as the
recruitment advertisement was issued by the Punjab Public Service
Commission for posts under the state government. As per Article 309
of the Constitution, the state government is entitled to regulate
the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to
these posts. The Punjab Rules, 1982 have been framed by the
state government in exercise of this power under Article 309 read
with Articles 234 and 318 of the Constitution. Further, Rule 3 of the
Central Rules, 1979 (as amended in 2012),4 restricts their applicability
to Central Civil Services and posts up to the level of Assistant
Commandant in paramilitary forces. Therefore, the Central Rules,
1979 will not apply to determine the eligibility under “ex-servicemen”
category for appointment under the advertisement issued by the
Punjab Public Service Commission. In Sansar Chand Atri v. State
of Punjab,5 considering a claim for reservation as “ex-servicemen”
for appointment to a post under an advertisement by the Punjab
Public Service Commission, this Court relied only on interpretation
of Rule 2(c) the Punjab Rules, 1982.6
10. In this light, the inquiry before us is whether respondent no. 4 would
qualify as an “ex-serviceman” under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules,
1982. In so far as the appellant is concerned, there is no doubt about
her eligibility under the “ex-servicemen” category after her release
from the Indian Army upon completion of service. Our enquiry is thus
confined to the eligibility of respondent no. 4, who joined the MNS in

4 By G.S.R. 757(E) dated 04.10.2012.
5 (2002) 4 SCC 154.
6 ibid, paras 4-7.
812 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

2013 as a Short Service Commissioned officer and was released on
04.09.2018, upon completion of her service period with applicable
entitlement to gratuity. We will now examine the status of IMNS.
11. Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943 7 was promulgated in
exercise of powers under the provisions of the Government of India
Act, 1935. By virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution, it continues
to remain in force to this date. The “Indian Military Nursing Service”
is constituted as an auxiliary force of the Indian Military and as part
of the armed forces of the Union. Section 3 of the MNS Ordinance
provides for the constitution of MNS in the following terms:
“Section 3. Constitution of Indian Military Nursing
Service.- (1) There shall be raised and maintained, in the
manner hereinafter provided, as part of the armed forces
of the Union and for service with the Indian Military forces
an auxiliary force which shall be designed the Military
Nursing Services (India).”
(emphasis supplied)

12. Section 4 of the MNS Ordinance, provides that: “The members of
the Indian Military Nursing Service shall be liable for service only
with forces and persons subject to the Army Act, 1950.” Section 5
provides that, “All members of the Indian Military Nursing Service
shall be of commissioned rank and shall be appointed as officers of
the Indian Military Nursing Service by the Central Government by
notification in the Official Gazette.” Section 6 provides for eligibility
for appointment, Section 7 for dismissal, Section 8 on training and
performance of duties, and Section 9 deals with application of the
Army Act, 1911 to members of IMNS, and reads:
“Section 9. Application of Army Act and Indian Army
Act, 1911 to members of Indian military Nursing
Service–(1) The provisions of the Indian Army Act,
1911 shall, to extent and subject to such adaptations
and modifications as may be prescribed, apply to
members of the Indian Military Nursing Services as
they apply to Indian commissioned officers, unless
they are clearly inapplicable to women.”

7 Hereinafter “MNS Ordinance”.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 813

Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.

12.1 Further, Sections 10 and 11 deal with the power of the Central
Government and the Chief of Army Staff to make Rules and
Regulations under the MNS Ordinance, respectively.
13. From a combined reading of these provisions, it is clear that IMNS
has been constituted as a “part of the Indian military” and “part of the
armed forces of the Union”. Its personnel are officers of commissioned
rank, whose service and conduct are regulated by the MNS Ordinance,
1943 and certain provisions of the Army Act, 1911, Regulations
made by the Chief of Army Staff, and Rules made by the Central
Government. This Court in Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India8 has also
held that the IMNS is an auxiliary force of the Indian military and is a
part of the Indian Army, but is a distinct and separate class in itself.9
14. We will now interpret the term “ex-serviceman” as defined under
Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to determine whether IMNS
personnel are eligible thereunder. Before dealing with the language
of the rule, it is essential to recognise its purpose and object. If we
understand the significance of the policy of the State and the larger
public purpose it seeks to subserve, the language of the law opens
up and the interpretative journey will lead up to the right destination.
14.1 The State Government recognises the contribution of a resident
of the State of Punjab by joining the armed forces of the Union.
Serving the nation as part of the armed forces of the Union
requires physical fitness and that has everything to do with
age. As they serve and exit the armed forces, they may be
spent force for military, but continue to be young and capable
for civil life. Their engagement in civil society is not merely a
matter of employment opportunity for ex-servicemen but also
subserves the larger interest of the nation and also in building
a fair and a healthy society.
15. The policy decision of the State Government is in recognition of
the fact that the strength of army personnel from Punjab is about
89000 persons.10 This accounts for 7.7% of the Army’s rank and file
even though its share in the national population is 2.3%. Effective
resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of

8 (2003) 8 SCC 720.
9 ibid, paras 5 and 13.
10 ‘Punjab second among all states in contributing to Army’s rank and file’, The Tribune (March, 15, 2021).
814 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the serving members of the defence forces. If the resettlement of
veterans is neglected, the talented youth of the nation may not be
motivated to join armed forces.
16. Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982, defines “ex-serviceman” as a
person who has served in any rank, as a combatant or non-combatant,
in the Naval, Military, or Air Force of the Union, and who has retired
or been released from service in certain specified circumstances.
Clause (iv) of the said rule is relevant for our purpose. It deals with
persons who have been released from service after completing their
period of engagement, otherwise than at his own request or by way
of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency
and has been given gratuity.
17. Respondent no. 4 squarely falls within this definition. She served as a
Short Service Commissioned officer in the IMNS. Rule 2(c) specifically
includes “Military”, along with Navy and Air Force, and as per the MNS
Ordinance, 1943 and this Court’s decision in Jasbir Kaur (supra), the
IMNS is a part of the Indian Military and armed forces of the Union.
18. Considering the intention of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to provide
employment opportunities to those who served in the armed forces, and
the language of Rule 2(c) that specifically includes Military personnel,
we see no reason to exclude IMNS personnel from the category of
“ex-servicemen”. Further, respondent no. 4 satisfies the requirements
of Clause (iv) of Rule 2(c) as she was released from service upon
completion of her engagement period and was also paid gratuity.
19. At this stage, we find it necessary to deal with the submission made by
the State of Punjab that IMNS must be excluded from “ex-servicemen”
under the Punjab Rules, 1982 in view of certain clarifications dated
31.07.2019 and 10.08.2021 issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India to this effect. We are unable
to agree with this submission as the Kendriya Sainik Board’s purpose
and objective is to formulate, advise on, and implement resettlement
and welfare policies for ex-servicemen and their dependents. While
the Board may determine the eligibility for these schemes and policies,
such determination does not have any bearing on the Rules formulated
by the State Government to provide reservations to ex-servicemen.
The clarifications issued by the Board do not have a direct bearing on
the Punjab Rules, 1982, which are formulated in exercise of powers
under Article 309 of the Constitution.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 815

Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.

20. In view of the above, we agree with the decision of division bench
of the High Court that respondent no. 4 is eligible to claim benefit
under the category of “ex-servicemen” as defined in the Punjab Rules,
1982. This is so far as respondent no. 4 is concerned.
21. So far as the appellant is concerned, although the High Court has
not specifically dealt with her appointment, we find it necessary to
clarify the position. There is no dispute that the appellant was eligible
under “ex-servicemen” category. The issue arises because the
appellant and respondent no. 4 are perhaps competing for the same
post under this category. The appellant was appointed to the post of
Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in the Punjab Civil
Services on 09.12.2022 and has uninterruptedly continued in service
ever since. Considering the passage of time, and her appointment
and continued service in the post, we are of the opinion that it will
cause great injustice to her if her appointment is cancelled or set
aside at this point in time. Her eligibility has not been doubted in
any manner or at any time.
22. In view of the above discussion, we direct that respondent
no. 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman and must be considered under
the “ex-servicemen” category. She is found to be meritorious. If she
is otherwise eligible, she must be given an appointment. She will be
entitled to notional benefits of service but will not be entitled to any
backwages. We, however, clarify that the appointment of respondent
No. 4 will not result in automatic termination of appellant’s service.
23. For the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with
the judgment of the High Court. The civil appeal is dismissed with
directions as indicated.
24. The parties shall bear their own costs.
25. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain