IMNS Is Part of the Indian Military ; Indian Military Nursing Service Personnel Eligible for Civil Posts Under Ex-Servicemen Quota in Punjab : Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed a civil appeal and upheld the judgment of the High Court which held that a former officer of the Indian Military Nursing Service qualifies as an “ex-serviceman” under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. The Court directed that the candidate be considered for appointment under the ex-servicemen category if found eligible and meritorious, while ensuring that the existing appointment to the contested post is not disturbed. The appellant’s appointment was protected, and the respondent was granted notional service benefits without back wages.
The Punjab Public Service Commission had issued a recruitment advertisement on 12 December 2020 for various posts under the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch), including reservations for “Ex-Servicemen” and their lineal descendants, as per the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. The appellant, a former Captain in the Indian Army, applied under the ex-servicemen category, was selected, and joined service on 9 December 2022 as an Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training).
Respondent No. 4, a Short Service Commissioned Officer from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS), also applied under the same category but was rejected on 20 May 2021 by the State of Punjab on the ground that her service in the IMNS did not qualify her for the ex-servicemen reservation.
Respondent No. 4 challenged the rejection in a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, relying on the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, and held that IMNS officers do not fall under the ex-servicemen category. However, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal, holding that the Punjab Rules, 1982 do not disqualify IMNS personnel from claiming ex-servicemen benefits. The High Court directed that if respondent No. 4 was found meritorious and eligible, she be appointed with notional seniority but without back wages.
The Supreme Court granted leave and issued interim directions to stay the High Court’s decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant continued in service.
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether IMNS personnel fall within the definition of “ex-serviceman” under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982. The Court clarified that the Central Rules, 1979 were inapplicable as the recruitment was for a state government post and governed solely by the Punjab Rules, which were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
The Court examined the IMNS framework under the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943, which constitutes the IMNS as an auxiliary force and part of the armed forces of the Union. The Ordinance confers commissioned officer status on IMNS members and applies certain provisions of the Army Act to them.
The Court also referred to Rule 2(c)(iv) of the Punjab Rules, which includes persons who have completed their period of engagement and have been paid gratuity as qualifying under the “ex-servicemen” definition. Respondent No. 4, having served from 2013 to 2018 and received gratuity, met these criteria.
While the appellant’s ex-servicemen status was undisputed, the issue arose due to the possibility of both parties vying for a single reserved post. The Court noted the appellant’s uninterrupted service since her appointment in 2022 and held that setting aside her appointment at this stage would be unjust. Therefore, the Court balanced both claims.
The Court stated: “The Indian Military Nursing Service is constituted as an auxiliary force of the Indian Military and as part of the armed forces of the Union.”
The Bench analysed the legal status of IMNS under the 1943 Ordinance and recorded: “Its personnel are officers of commissioned rank, whose service and conduct are regulated by the MNS Ordinance, 1943, and certain provisions of the Army Act, 1911.”
It further recorded: “The IMNS is a part of the Indian Military and armed forces of the Union.”
In interpreting Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, the Court observed: “Serving the nation as part of the armed forces of the Union requires physical fitness and that has everything to do with age. As they serve and exit the armed forces, they may be a spent force for military, but continue to be young and capable for civil life.”
Addressing the policy intent behind such reservations, the Court stated: “Effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces.”
On the eligibility of respondent No. 4, the Court held: “Respondent No. 4 squarely falls within this definition. She served as a Short Service Commissioned officer in the IMNS.” It continued: “We see no reason to exclude IMNS personnel from the category of ‘ex-servicemen’.”
Regarding the appellant, the Court acknowledged: “There is no dispute that the appellant was eligible under the ‘ex-servicemen’ category. The issue arises because the appellant and respondent no. 4 are perhaps competing for the same post.”
The Court stated that displacing the appellant would cause unfairness: “Considering the passage of time, and her appointment and continued service in the post, we are of the opinion that it will cause great injustice to her if her appointment is cancelled or set aside at this point in time.”
The Court also noted that clarifications issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board excluding IMNS personnel from eligibility for ex-servicemen schemes had no bearing on statutory rules framed under Article 309.
The Court held that respondent No. 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 and must be considered under that category. It was directed that if she is found to be otherwise eligible and meritorious, she must be appointed to the appropriate post. She shall be entitled to notional benefits of service, but shall not be entitled to any back wages.
It was further clarified that the appointment of respondent No. 4 will not result in the automatic termination of the appellant’s service. The Court observed that the appellant had been in uninterrupted service since 9 December 2022, and that her eligibility under the ex-servicemen category was not in dispute.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the directions issued by the High Court were upheld. The Court directed that the appointment process for respondent No. 4 proceed in accordance with the judgment, without affecting the current service status of the appellant.
No order was made as to costs. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr. K S Rekhi, Mrs. P S Vijayadharni, and Mr. Arindam Sarin, Advocates; instructed by Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Jain, Deputy Advocate General; Ms. Nupur Kumar and Mr. Sadiq Noor, Advocates; instructed by Ms. Nupur Kumar, Advocate-on-Record. Mr. Nishanth Patil, Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title: Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 494
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5235 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8842 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
[Read/Download order]
