Delhi High Court: In a writ petition preferred by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), challenging the judgment dated 13 February 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Vinod Kumar, JJ. held that Armed Forces personnel who had already completed the prescribed period of service could not be denied the status of an ex-serviceman merely because the application for civil employment was made after expiry of that period. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to the age relaxation under Rule 5, Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979. The Court further held that an administrative decision must stand or fall on the reasons stated in the original order and cannot subsequently be sustained by introducing additional grounds. Since the cancellation of the respondent’s candidature was based solely on an erroneous denial of ex-serviceman status, it was unsustainable.
Background
The respondent was a medical officer who had served in the Indian Air Force (IAF) and superannuated on 30 June 2019. Prior to his superannuation, the respondent applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 29 June 2017 for regular recruitment to the post of Teaching Faculty Professor in the ESIC Medical College, Faridabad. Interviews for the said posts were conducted between 1 October 2018 and 24 October 2018.
Thereafter, ESIC issued a Notification dated 14 February 2019, setting out the names of the candidates who had been provisionally selected. The respondent’s name appeared at Serial No. 3 in the said notification as a provisionally selected candidate for the post of Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the general category.
Subsequently, by communication dated 8 July 2020, ESIC cancelled the respondent’s candidature on the ground that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for age relaxation as an ex-serviceman.
ESIC consequently took the position that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 5, Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, which provides for age relaxation to eligible ex-servicemen.
The respondent challenged the cancellation of his candidature before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held in favour of the respondent and directed that he be given regular appointment as Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, ESIC approached the Delhi High Court by filing the present writ petition.
Contention of the parties
ESIC argued that the benefit of Rule 5 was available only to persons who satisfied the definition of an ex-serviceman under the applicable rules and DoPT instructions. It was contended that the respondent did not satisfy the requirements of the DoPT OM dated 3 April 1991, particularly the requirement concerning the time within which an Armed Forces employee could apply for civil employment as an ex-serviceman. ESIC also relied upon the fact that the respondent had subsequently been appointed on a contractual basis on 27 June 2019, following an interview conducted on 26 June 2019. On this basis, ESIC argued that the Tribunal had effectively converted the respondent’s contractual appointment into a regular appointment. It relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 and related principles concerning regularisation of contractual employees.
The respondent contended that he had already completed the prescribed period of service in the IAF before applying for regular recruitment to the ESIC post. Therefore, the restriction contained in the DoPT OM, which was intended to permit serving Armed Forces personnel to apply within 1 year before completion of the prescribed period, could not operate against a person who had already completed the prescribed period or had retired. The respondent further contended that his provisional selection had been made pursuant to an independent recruitment process conducted in 2018 and that his subsequent contractual appointment did not extinguish his independent right arising from that recruitment process.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the central question was whether the respondent could be treated as an ex-serviceman for the purposes of Rule 5, Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules.
The Court noted that, under the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 3 April 1991, the relevant criterion was whether an Armed Forces employee seeking civil employment applied within one year of completing the prescribed period of service. Both counsel were in agreement that the “prescribed period” of service referred to in the DoPT OM was 20 years from the date the respondent had joined the Armed Forces. The dispute, therefore, centred on whether a person who applied after completing this 20-year period, rather than within one year prior to its completion, could still be treated as an ex-serviceman
The Court rejected the interpretation that a person who applied after completing the prescribed period would thereby lose the status of an ex-serviceman. It observed that the purpose of the 1-year requirement was to prevent serving personnel who were not nearing retirement from seeking the benefits available to ex-servicemen. This rationale, however, could not apply to persons who had already completed the prescribed period of service or had retired from the Armed Forces.
Since the respondent had applied for the ESIC post after completing the prescribed period of service in the IAF, the Court held that he could not be denied the status of an ex-serviceman. Consequently, he was entitled to the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 5, Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules.
The Court further noted that the respondent’s candidature had been cancelled solely on the ground that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for age relaxation as an ex-serviceman. Having found that the respondent was entitled to be treated as an ex-serviceman and was consequently eligible for age relaxation, the Court held that the sole basis for cancellation of his candidature no longer survived. Accordingly, the cancellation of his candidature was held to be unsustainable in law.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election Commission of India, (1978) 1 SCC 405. The Court reiterated that an administrative or executive decision must stand or fall on the reasons stated in the decision itself and cannot subsequently be supplemented by additional grounds through affidavits or arguments before the Court. Applying this principle, the Court held that ESIC could not seek to sustain the cancellation of the respondent’s candidature by relying upon grounds other than those stated in its communication dated 8 July 2020. Since the stated ground, namely, the respondent’s alleged lack of eligibility for age relaxation, was found to be legally untenable; the cancellation could not be sustained.
The Court also considered ESIC’s contention that the Tribunal’s direction to grant regular appointment effectively amounted to regularisation of the respondent’s contractual employment. The Court rejected this contention and distinguished the present case from cases involving a claim for regularisation of contractual employment. It observed that the respondent’s claim to regular appointment arose independently from the earlier recruitment process in which he had participated between 1 October 2018 and 24 October 2018 and pursuant to which he had been provisionally selected in February 2019. His subsequent contractual appointment did not extinguish or override the right arising from that earlier selection process.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Tribunal had not directed the conversion of the respondent’s contractual appointment into a regular appointment. Rather, the Tribunal had held that the respondent was entitled to regular appointment pursuant to the original recruitment process, as the cancellation of his candidature in that process was unlawful. The Court therefore found the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 concerning regularisation of contractual employees to be tangential to the controversy.
The Court consequently upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It held that the respondent’s candidature ought to have proceeded further following his shortlisting and provisional selection pursuant to the interviews conducted between 1 October 2018 and 24 October 2018. The cancellation of his candidature was therefore held to be unsustainable in law.
The Court directed ESIC to grant the respondent regular appointment as Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in accordance with the original selection process. However, since the respondent had crossed the age of superannuation applicable to a regular employee, he could not be permitted to function as a regular Professor in the hospital. Nevertheless, he was held entitled to all consequential benefits arising from his deemed regular appointment, including fixation of pay by treating him as a regular employee, parity with candidates who had participated in the same selection process, and re-computation of his retiral benefits on that basis.
The Court further directed ESIC to complete the necessary exercise within 4 weeks from the date of the judgment and to disburse the consequential arrears, if any, within the same period. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
[ESI Corpn. v. Jagadish Chandra Sharma, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5129, decided on 7-7-2026]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners: Sitikanth Nayak, SPC
For Respondents: Prabhat Kumar, Adv. For R-1, Himanshu Pathak, SPC with Mohit Gupta, Adv. for R-2 & 3
