Biru Ram and Others vs The State of Punjab and Another

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.—A supposed conflict of view betwixt the Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Dr. Jagmohan Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab and Anr. 1980 (3) S.L.R. 400, and The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Shri Pritam Chand 1980 (3) S.L.R. 802, alone has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.

Since we discern no discordance betwixt the two judgments it is wholly unnecessary to advert to the facts. At the very threshold it deserves highlighting that the same learned judges who constituted the Division Bench in the aforesaid two cases were construing the distinct and separate definition clauses of Rule 2 of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non Technical Services) Rules, 1968, as amended by Rules of 1977. To bring this in sharp focus the relevant provisions which fell for construction in each of the two cases may be juxtaposed against each other:

table missing

With the aforesaid statutory background it suffices to recall that in Dr. Jagmohan Singh''s case it was specifically the constitutionality of Sub-clause (ii)(b) of rule 2(d) which alone had fallen for consideration. After an exhaustive discussion it was held that this provision, which sought to restrict these concessions only to the first appointment in the civil service after the release from the Armed Forces did not in any manner promote the objects of the rules and indeed tended to defeat the same. Consequently the conclusion arrived at was as under:

For the following reasons, I hold that Rule 2(d)(ii)(b) of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non-Technical Services) (1st Amendment) Rules, 1977 is unconstitutional and ultra vires. I strike down the same.

On the other hand is Pritam Chand''s case the aforesaid provision did not even remotely come up for consideration. Therein the sole challenge was directed mainly to Clause (c) of Rule 2 quoted above. Upholding its validity it was opined that the classification of Armed personnel on account of their having been released at their own request on compassionate grounds was valid and reasonable. In so opining the Bench had followed the Full Bench judgment in Sant Ram Nehra v. The State of Haryana and Ors. ILR (1980) P&H. 247, wherein a somewhat similar provision in the rules made by a Haryana amendment had been upheld.

It would thus appear that herein there is no conflict of judicial opinion. The Division Bench in Dr. Jagmohan Singh''s case and that in Pritam Chand''s case were construing altogether different and independent clauses of Rule 2. Indeed the learned Counsel for the parties ultimately were unanimous in submitting that in fact no divergence of judicial opinion arises and that they were somewhat remiss to even suggest the same before the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly we hold that both the cases are in consonance with each other and direct that the matter be now placed before the learned Single Judge for decision on merits.

D.S. Tewatia, J.

I agree.

S.S. Kang, J.

I also agree.