The main legal point established is that the reservation of vacancies for Ex-servicemen under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 takes precedence, and LDESM category candidates are only considered if no Ex-servicemen are available for the reserved vacancies.

JUDGMENT :

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Appellant had filed a writ petition challenging the action of the respondent-Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') for not extending the benefit of reservation under Ex-servicemen category to the Lineal Descendants of Ex-servicemen (hereinafter referred to as 'LDESM') despite the fact that the requisite number of candidates in the said category as per the advertisement and the rules have not qualified for shortlisting by the Ex-servicemen. It was further asserted that this action of the respondent-Commission being in gross violation of the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement as well as the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Rules') cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside, which writ petition stands dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 25.03.2021.

2. Briefly the facts are that the Commission, in pursuance to the requisition received from the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel, issued advertisement bearing No.14 on 08.12.2020 for conducting Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020 to fill up 75 posts of various officers in the Government of Punjab. Appellant applied under the LDESM category and was issued Roll No.30614. He appeared in the preliminary examination held on 13.02.2021 result whereof was released on 13.03.2021, wherein appellant scored a total of 180.5 marks out of total 400 marks.

3. Commission released list of roll numbers provisionally shortlisted for the mains examination on 12.03.2021 mentioning therein the cut off marks for different categories. The cut off marks for the ESM category was mentioned as 160.5.. As regards the LDESM category is concerned, no cut off marks were fixed nor was any list of roll numbers issued for shortlisting for the mains examination. Appellant approached this Court aggrieved because of the non-inclusion of the roll numbers of the LDESM category despite the fact that the appellant had scored 180.5 marks, which is much higher than the cut off marks fixed for the Ex-servicemen category. The assertion on the part of the appellant is that the LDESM category candidates have been denied the right of consideration for the mains examination despite the fact that 11 posts were reserved for the Ex-servicemen/LDESM category and the number of candidates, who were to be shortlisted for participation in the mains examination had to be 13 times the number of posts to be filled up, therefore, the said number would come to 143 candidates. The action of respondents being violative of 1982 Rules cannot sustain.

4. Counsel for the appellant has asserted two aspects before this Court. The first being that the number of candidates, who have been shortlisted for the mains examination being Ex-servicemen themselves, are less than the required number of 143 candidates to be called for participation in the mains examination. This contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has on instructions, informed the Court that 143 candidates, who are Ex-servicemen themselves, have been shortlisted for the mains examination, which comes to 13 times the number of posts reserved for the Ex-servicemen/LDESM category.

5. Second issue which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant is that only the Ex-servicemen category candidates have been shortlisted for the mains examination, whereas the posts were reserved for ESM/LDESM category. He asserts that once the posts are reserved for both these categories, their joint merit as has been obtained in the preliminary examination, should have been taken into consideration for shortlisting the candidates for the mains examination. His further assertion is that Rule 4 of the 1982 Rules ac