Probationer in a Substantive Post is Not a 'Temporary Employee', Cannot Avail Ex-Servicemen Reservation Again: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-09-23

Probationary Role is Substantive, Not Temporary; Ex-Serviceman Can't Claim Reservation Again: Rajasthan HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has held that an ex-serviceman appointed to a substantive government post on probation cannot be considered a "temporary employee." Consequently, such an individual is ineligible to claim reservation benefits under the ex-serviceman quota for subsequent government job recruitments.

Justice Anand Sharma, sitting at the Jaipur Bench, dismissed the writ petition filed by ex-serviceman Narendra Singh, who sought appointment as a Junior Accountant after having already secured a position as a Village Development Officer (VDO). The court affirmed that the reservation for ex-servicemen is a one-time benefit to facilitate their initial entry into civil service, not a tool for career advancement.

Case Background

The petitioner, Narendra Singh, a retired Indian Army soldier, participated in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Accountant under the Ex-Servicemen (EWS) category. Despite scoring 322.33 marks, well above the cut-off of 277.60, his selection was denied. The reason for the denial was his existing employment as a VDO on probation, an appointment he had accepted a few months prior.

Petitioner's Arguments vs. State's Position

Petitioner's Contention: Narendra Singh argued that his status as a probationer meant he was not a confirmed employee and should be treated as a "temporary" one. He relied on a proviso to Rule 2-A of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988, which allows ex-servicemen re-employed on a casual, contract, temporary, or ad-hoc basis to continue availing reservation benefits. Since he was on probation and receiving a fixed remuneration without the full benefits of a confirmed employee, he contended he fell into this category.

State's Opposition: The State of Rajasthan countered that the petitioner was appointed as a VDO against a substantive vacancy through a regular selection process. They argued that a "probationer," as defined under Rule 7(30) of the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR), 1951, is fundamentally different from a temporary or ad-hoc employee. Once an ex-serviceman secures regular employment under the State, their eligibility for the reservation quota is exhausted.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

The court framed the central issue as whether a probationer appointed against a substantive vacancy can be treated as a temporary employee to continue availing the ex-serviceman reservation.

Probation is Not Temporary Employment: Justice Sharma noted that the petitioner’s appointment order as VDO clearly stated it was a regular recruitment. The court referred to the RSR, emphasizing that probation is an integral part of a substantive appointment, serving as a period to assess a candidate's suitability. The judgment stated, "The reliance placed by the petitioner on the fact that during probation, he receives fixed remuneration... 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."

Application of Precedent: The court cited the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Lokendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others , which had already established that an employee appointed through due process against a substantive vacancy holds the post substantively, irrespective of their probationary status. Applying this ratio, the court found that the petitioner could not be regarded as a temporary employee.

Interpretation of Ex-Servicemen Rules

The judgment provided a clear interpretation of Rule 2-A of the Rules of 1988, which governs the re-employment of ex-servicemen. The rule explicitly states that once an ex-serviceman joins government service after availing the reservation benefit, their "Ex-Serviceman status for the purpose of re-employment... would cease."

The court clarified the legislative intent behind the proviso that exempts temporary and ad-hoc employees:

"The legislative intent behind this proviso is to ensure that ex-servicemen, who are engaged in non-regular employment, are not deprived of the benefit of reservation. It cannot be interpreted so as to include within its fold persons like the petitioner, who already hold a regular substantive post in State service, albeit on probation."

The court further noted that accepting the petitioner's argument would create an "anomalous situation" where an already employed individual could repeatedly use the reservation quota, defeating its purpose of helping unemployed ex-servicemen. The argument that the Junior Accountant post was more attractive or had a higher pay scale was deemed irrelevant.

Final Decision

Finding the petition "devoid of any substance and merit," the High Court dismissed it. The court concluded that the petitioner, being substantively appointed as a VDO on probation, does not fall within the category of casual or temporary employees and was rightly excluded from consideration under the ex-serviceman quota for the Junior Accountant post.