| ➡️ Get instant news updates on Whatsapp. Click here to join our Whatsapp Group. |
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the policy rationale behind reservation in appointments for ex-servicemen is to provide a one-time opportunity for re-employment and not to serve as a perpetual mechanism for career advancement.
Case Background
Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a petition filed by an ex-serviceman who had already secured re-appointment as a Village Development Officer (VDO) under the ex-servicemen quota. The petitioner sought appointment as a Junior Accountant under the same category, claiming benefit of the last proviso to Rule 2-A of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988.
Rule 2-A provides that once an ex-serviceman is appointed to a government post through reservation, his ex-servicemen status for re-employment ceases. However, the proviso allows those re-employed on casual, contractual, temporary, or ad-hoc basis to continue availing the benefit.
The petitioner argued that since he was appointed on a two-year probation and had not been confirmed in service, he was still a “temporary employee” and thus eligible for reservation. He further submitted that the pay scale of a VDO was lower than that of a Junior Accountant.
State’s Stand
The State opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner was appointed as a VDO against a substantive vacancy through regular recruitment. Therefore, probation did not make his appointment temporary.
Court’s Findings
The Court framed the issue as: “Whether a probationer appointed against a substantive vacancy through regular recruitment can still be treated as a temporary employee so as to continue availing reservation benefits of ex-servicemen in another recruitment.”
Answering in the negative, the Court held that probation is not the same as temporary or casual appointment. Instead, probation is an integral part of a substantive appointment in public service.
The Court clarified:
“…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.”
It further observed that accepting the petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 2-A would create an anomalous situation where a regularly appointed employee could repeatedly claim ex-servicemen reservation, thereby frustrating its true object—to provide employment to unemployed ex-servicemen.
On the petitioner’s argument regarding pay scales, the Court held that once a regular government appointment has been secured, the comparative attractiveness of another post does not justify further claims of reservation, as the benefit stands exhausted.
Judgment
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the reservation policy for ex-servicemen is a one-time benefit meant for re-employment, not for continued career progression.
Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
