Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad J, J. 1. The petitioner in the present writ application prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent reserve Bank of India and its officers, to allow him to join on the post of coin/note Examiner as clerk Grade II in the Bank at Patna on the terms and conditions issued by ths Manager (respondent No 2) as contained in annexure and ignore the letter dated 17-5-1991 issued by the Personnel Officer of the Bank as also to quash the said letter (annexure 7) the same being discriminatory, arbitrary and mala fide. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. On 13-1-1970 the petitioner was appointed as Airman in the Indian Air Force and promoted to the rank of sergeant in the year 1983. After completion of 15 years of service on 31-1-1981 he retired from the said service, whereafter he was appointed in the temporary service in the Food Corporation of India, Regional office, Patna on 31-7-1985 in the regular scale of pay of Rs.290-10-380-12-440-15-485. On 28-5-1988 there was an advertisement for appointment in reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on the post of clerk grade It Coin/note Examiner in the scale of Rs 650-1820, now revised to Rs.1155-3245 The petitioner, who fulfilled the requisite qualification, applied for the post through the Manager in the Food Corporation of India, regional Office, Patna Later, he appeared in the written test also and was declared successful in the written test as well as personality test both and accordingly, on 23-9-89 a memoradum was issued by the Bank intimating the petitioner that his name has been included in the list for appointment as clerk grade II, which was to be operative till 7-7-90 unless extended by the bank. Photo copies of the said memorandum with its correction have been annexed as annexures 2 and 2/1. Thereafter a letter was issued by the Bank to submit all original certificates in the office and for attending Medical board Accordingly, the original certificates of the petitioner were produced and checked and after keeping photo copies, the same were returned to the petitioner. The petitioner also attended the Medical Board. On 3.9.90 the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis vide memo contained in annexure 3. The petitioner also attended the Medical Board. On 3.9.90 the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis vide memo contained in annexure 3. In terms of the said appointment he executed sureties bonds and filed the same in the Bank However, due to some personal difficulties he could not join the post on 26-3-90. which was the date fixed for his joining and thus, he filed a petition before the Manager on 19-3-90 itself i. e before the expiry of the date of joining, in which he prayed for extension of the date on joining The Bank vide letter dated 3rd April, 1990 as contained in annexure 5 intimated the petitioner that the said request of the petitioner may be considered at the appropriate time. Later, another memo dated 7th august, 1990 (annexure 6) was issued by the Bank intimating the petitioner that he should report for medical examination on 17-8-90 and that he should also submit no-objection certificate from the existing employer if he is in employment elsewhere. On 17th May, 91 the Bank, vide registered letter no.6675 issued by its personnel officer, intimated the petitioner that as he was in the regular employment of the Government of the public sector undertaking on the civil side and for which he had availed the benefits extended to him as an Ex Service man his name had been deleted from the waiting list for the post of clerk/coin Note Examiner, grade II, prepared on 7th July, 1989. A photo copy of the said letter has been annexed as annexure 7 and the same has been impugned in the present writ application. 3. It is contended that one Sri Umesh Chandra Singh, who was also an Ex-Service man and was an appointee in the State Bank of India of bikaner, Jaipur and Patna as an Ex-Service man after retirement from military service, was given appointment in the Bank and his joining was accepted on 26-3-90. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 in which it has been contended that the petitioner has no right to appointment by mere inclusion of his name, in the waiting list/selection list. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 in which it has been contended that the petitioner has no right to appointment by mere inclusion of his name, in the waiting list/selection list. Further it is stated that one K. Chandran, who was also petitioner in the case (annexure D to the counter affidavit) had applied for recruitment in the bank pursuant to 1988 advertisement for the same post, vide his letter dated 17-4-90 complained that according to Government of Indias instructions in 1985 Ex-service men who had already got benefit of reservation after discharge in defence service either in Government or in public sector undertaking are not entitled to benefit or reservation second time. Thereafter, Central office of the Bank made reference to the Government of India on the said subject and the Government of India sent a copy of the office memo issued on 2-5-85 and 7-11-89 along with a covering letter dated 29th May, 90, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 3, the Central Government by the said letter clarified that the second time benefit of reservation for Ex-service men who have already availed the facilities once on their first recruitment in government or public sector undertaking after release discharge from the defence services are not admissible. The Bank accordingly issued an office circular dated 31-7-90 advising all its offices to follow the aforementioned instructions in respect of recruitment of ex-service men. A photo copy of the said circular has been annexed as annexure C. In the meantime, the kerala High Court in the case of Sri K Chandran and another V/s. the governor, Reserve Bank of India, delivered judgment in which the scope of the aforementioned memo dated 2-5-85 of the Government of India was considered and it was held that pursuant to the same no person is entitled to be included id the list held that Ex-service men, who were holding civil post are not entitled to claim the post reserved in the advertisement and accordingly, direction was issued to delete the names of those persons. A photo copy of the said judgment of the Kerala High Court has been annexed as annexure D. The Bank after receipt of the copy of the said judgment had issued an office circular on 8-3-91 to the Manager of ail offices of the Bank inter alia advising them to ensure that Ex-service men already waitlisted and awaiting appointment in the Bank are appointed only after ascertaining that they are not in the regular employment of Government public Sector undertaking on the civil side for which they had availed the benefits extended to ex-servicemen It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid circular the letter contained in annexure 7, which has been impugned to the writ application was issued to the petitioner. As regards the appointment of Sri Umesh prasad Singh it is stated that as he had already been appointed t efore the receipt of the aforementioned instructions regarding non-admissibility of the benefit of reservation to Ex-Servicemen who had availed of the benefit of ex-servicemen on their first re-employment in civil post after discharge release from defence services, the petitioner cannot compare himself with him. 5. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said instructions of the Government of India and the Circular issued by the Bank, which are under challenge by way of supplementary application filed on behalf of the petitioner, is discriminatory. In this connection the learned Counsel referred to the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Jagmohan Singh V/s. State of Punjab (1980 (3) SLR 400 ). in which a similar provision contained in Army Force Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non-Technical Service) Rules, 1968 imposing similar restriction upon the concession of first appointment was declared to be ultra vires Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, Mr. in which a similar provision contained in Army Force Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non-Technical Service) Rules, 1968 imposing similar restriction upon the concession of first appointment was declared to be ultra vires Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Jha appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the said decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is of no avail to the petitioner as in the said case the petitioners were those, who had join d the military service in the wake of Chinese aggression during the emergency and in order to attract large number of young men, who otherwise were not inclined to adopt souldery as a career, the State of Punjab had announced a number of concision to the Ex-service men and civilian employees and accordingly, the petitioner had undertaken military service during Emergency, whereas, in the instant case the petitioner admittedly entered military service taking it to be his career and after his retirement release from military service, is claiming benefit under the memorandum issued by the Government of India as contained in annexure B. Thus, it was submitted that the present case is completely distinguishable from the case, which was under consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Further, it was submitted t at the Supreme Court in the Case of Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana (1991 (1) SLR 200) upheld that the benefit of military service available to only those, who were enrolled or commissioned during the period of Emergency and not those, who joined before Emergency i. e, 26-10-1962 and the persons joining military service during emergency and those already in service form two distinct classes and while considering the defect of the Punjab Govt. National Emergency (Concession.) Rules 1965 held that differentiate in the case of the said two distinct classes is intelligible and has a direct nexus to the objects sought to be achieved Accordingly the validity of the said rule was held to be not discriminatory or arbitrary. The relevant passage which was referred to by Mr. National Emergency (Concession.) Rules 1965 held that differentiate in the case of the said two distinct classes is intelligible and has a direct nexus to the objects sought to be achieved Accordingly the validity of the said rule was held to be not discriminatory or arbitrary. The relevant passage which was referred to by Mr. Jha is paragraph 12 and the same is quoted hereunder ;- "the young persons who have joined the military service during the national emergency and those who were already in service and due to exigencies of service had been compelled to serve during the emergency form two distinct classes The appellants and the petitioners who joined the army before the proclamation of emergency, had Chosen the career voluntarily and their service emergency was as a matter of course They had no option or intention of joining the Government service during the period of emergency as they were already serving in the army. The persons who enrolled or commissioned during the emergency, on the other hand, had on sccount of the call of the nation joined the army at that critical juncture of national emergency to gave the mother and by taking a greater risk where danger to the life of a member of the armed was higher They include persons who could have pursued their studies, acquired higher qualifications and joined a higher post and those who could have joined the government service before attaining the maximum age prescribed and thereby gained seniority in the service. Foregoing all these benefits and avenues, they joined the army keeping in view the needs of the country and assurances contained in conditions of service in executive instructions The latter form a class by themselves and they cannot be equated to those who joined the army before the proclamation of the emergency. Benefits had been promised to such persons who needed to the call of the nation at that critical juncture. Older man by joining the military service lost chance of joining other Government service and when joins such service on release from the army younger man had already occupied the post. To remove the hardship. the benefit of military service was sought to be given to those young persons who were enrolled Commissioner during the period of emergency forgoing their job opportunities. To remove the hardship. the benefit of military service was sought to be given to those young persons who were enrolled Commissioner during the period of emergency forgoing their job opportunities. The differentia is, therefore, intelligible and has a direct nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. The petitioners cannot, therefore. challenge the rule as discriminatory or arbitrary. Such of those appellants and the petitioners who have joined the army before the proclamation of the emergency are not, therefore, entitled to the benefit of military service as per the Emergency Commissions rules. " 7. I find force in the submission of Mr. Jha. The Government of india considering the past services rendered by the Ex-servicemen decided to give some benefit to them in the matter of re-employment in civil services after their release/discharge as the case may be While giving the said benefit the Government of India, vide its memorandum dated 2nd May, 1985 made it clear that once an Ex-Service man has joined the Govt. Service on civil side after availaging of the benefits given to him as Ex-Serviceman for his re-employment is not entitled to avail the benefit again. The said clarification was re-iterated by the Government of Indin in its office memorad-dum dated 7-11-89 in which it was made clear that the second time benefit of ex-Serviceman will not be admissible to those Ex-Serviceman who had already availed of the benefit of Ex-servicemen on their first re-employment in the Civilian post It appears that the object behind the said decision of the Government of India is to give an opportunity of employment on civil post to Ex-servicemen who become idle after discharge/release from military service, which is of a shorten period than the normal service tenure of civilian, accordingly, the Government decided that the Ex-servicemen after their release from the defence forces be given concession and benefit in aspect of their past services for the purpose of the civil appointment I do not find unconstitutionally or infirmity in the said decision, rather it is in the interest of the Ex-servicemen released from defence forces every year. If ex-servicemen are allowed the same benefit time and again, the persons retiring from the force after him would be deprived of the benefits of getting the employment on availing of the said benefit Rather granting benefit time and again to the same person, who already got an employment by virtue of the said benefit, in my opinion, would be discriminatory. 8. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a number of other contentions also He submitted that there was no such condition in the advertisement that one would not be allowed to avail of the benefit second time in the matter of appointment on a civilian post In support of this learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 S. C C. (L and S) 249 in the case of Hoshiar Singh V/s. State of Haryana and others, in which the Supreme Court held that the criteria regarding the standard for physical fitness laid down in the advertisement is fixed. The matter of relaxation on the said standard would depend on the terms of the advertisment and the court would not relax the physical fitness as mentioned in the advertisemnt, I do not find substance in aforesaid submission of Mr. Singh It is not in dispute that there was no such condition mentioned in the advertisement that a person would be given the benefit available to an Ex-serviceman even if he has availed the same once Thus, in my opinion, the condition regarding the benefit to Ex-serviceman in the matter of such employment has to be governed by the rules/instructions issued by the competent authorities in this regard and it was not necessary to be mentioned in the advertisement. 9. Mr. Singh also ventured to submit that the changeed policy regarding non-admissibility of the benefit to ex-service man second time would not apply in the present case, as it came into existence only on 25th september, 91 (vide annexure C), whereas the advertisement was issued on 20th may, 1988. I do not find any substance in the said submision of Mr. Singh as well. The rule regarding grant of benefit to Ex-service man was already there since much before the advertisement was issued The Bank only issued circular re-iterating the same on the basis of the clarification received from the Government of India (vide annexure B ). I do not find any substance in the said submision of Mr. Singh as well. The rule regarding grant of benefit to Ex-service man was already there since much before the advertisement was issued The Bank only issued circular re-iterating the same on the basis of the clarification received from the Government of India (vide annexure B ). Thus, there is no question of any change of the policy The policy of the government of India in connection with the reservation of grade C and D has been right from May 1978 and in regard to the second time benefit clarification was also issued on 2nd May, 1985 and re-iterated in its office memorandum dated 7-11-89 ie. much before the advertisement was issued. 10. Learned Counsel also submitted that once, the name of the petitioner had been enlisted in the panel, then before delisting the same be was entitled for an opportunity In support of this, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1986 (3) S C. C. (S. Govidaraju V/s. Karnataka STR and another) It is no doubt that in normal circumstances a person would be entitled for an opportunity before any adverse decision is taken by the authority affecting his existing right. But as I find that the facts ar not in dispute and that the petitioner had already availed of the benefit once earlier when he got appointement in the food corporation of India where he is still in employment I do not see that any fruitful purpose would have been served even if he would have been given aa opportunity before the issuance of the impugned letter (annexure 7 ). 11. It was also submitted by Mr Singh that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of sickness on the part of the authority. I am unable to appreciate this submission as to what was the sickness on the part of the respondent No.2. In fact, the Bank initially in ignorance of the aforementioned Government of Indias instructions had issued the memorandum (annexure 3) directing him to report for appointment on or before 26th march, 1990, but the petitioner due to some domestic problems expressed bis inability to join by that date and requested for extension of time. In fact, the Bank initially in ignorance of the aforementioned Government of Indias instructions had issued the memorandum (annexure 3) directing him to report for appointment on or before 26th march, 1990, but the petitioner due to some domestic problems expressed bis inability to join by that date and requested for extension of time. However, in the meantime, the Management of the Bank came to know about the government of Indias instructions, which was circulated through a letter issued by the Central office of the Bank regarding non-admissibility of the benefit to Ex-serviceman second time in the matter of re-employment on the civilian Post. The mistake was corrected by issuing the impugned annexure-1. I do not find any infirmity, nor do I find any slackness on the part of the bank. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Dismissed,