Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1472 (ALL)

ABAL SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-04-21

SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri B.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioner Capt. Abal Singh, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, in January 1989, initially assails order dated 11.1.1989 issued by Secretary (Institutional Finance), U.P. Government, proposing amendment in seniority list of U.P. Sales Tax Service Cadre (hereinafter referred to as ‘S.T.S. Cadre’) in the light of Supreme Court judgment dated 21.7.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 973-74 of 1985 (Narendra Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and others). He further sought a mandamus commanding respondents to determine petitioner’s seniority as per Rule 6 of U.P. Non-Technical (Class-II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies of Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1973’) or at least from year 1962, whichever is earlier, or from such date this Court may determine. 3. Subsequently, by amendment, he has added four more prayers in the writ petition seeking writ of certiorari quashing order dated 14.2.1989, whereby his representation claiming seniority under Rule 6 of Rules 1973 was rejected on the ground that he did not qualify competitive examination within three years from the date of discharge from Army i.e. 1.10.1966-67, therefore, he will get benefit only actual service rendered in the Army. He further sought a mandamus restraining respondents from filling up post of Deputy Commissioner, by promotion. 4. Petitioner after attaining age of superannuation of 58 years has already retired from service on 31st January 1990. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that writ petition is still alive to the extent that in case, petitioner’s seniority is revised, he would be entitled to notional benefits like promotion, arrears, fixation of re-determination of pension etc. 6. Brief facts necessary for determination of dispute in the present writ petition may be stated as under: 7. Petitioner’s date of birth is 26.1.1932. He appeared for selection, through Emergency Commission, in Indian Army in 1962 and was commissioned on 27.9.1963. He was demobilised from Indian Army on 1.10.1967. 8. On 23.12.1967, petitioner was appointed in National Cadet Corps (in short ‘N.C.C.’) where he served up to 27.3.1977. Petitioner’s date of birth is 26.1.1932. He appeared for selection, through Emergency Commission, in Indian Army in 1962 and was commissioned on 27.9.1963. He was demobilised from Indian Army on 1.10.1967. 8. On 23.12.1967, petitioner was appointed in National Cadet Corps (in short ‘N.C.C.’) where he served up to 27.3.1977. In the meantime, he appeared in competitive examination held for recruitment to post of Sales Tax Officer (in short ‘S.T.O.’) conducted by U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P.P.C.S.’) in 1975 and having selected therein, he was appointed in the said service, where he joined on 28.3.1977. Petitioner claimed to have applied against the vacancies reserved for demobilised officer under Rules 1973 and was selected there against. He was confirmed as S.T.O. vide order dated 1.4.1978. 9. Petitioner’s seniority was determined in the cadre of S.T.O., taking his date of appointment as 31.12.1964 vide order dated 19.5.1978. He was placed below officers recruited in the cadre of S.T.O., in combined competitive examination, held in 1964. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination of seniority, petitioner made a representation dated 16.8.1978 claiming seniority from 1954 when he completed 21 years of age and was eligible to appear in competitive examination held in 1954. The representation remain unheeded, hence reminders dated 27.11.1978, 31.1.1981 and 31.3.1981 were also sent. 11. State Government vide order dated 24.8.1983 revoked its earlier order dated 19.5.1978, whereby seniority of petitioner was determined w.e.f. 31.12.1964 and date for the purpose of seniority now was revised as 31.12.1965. 12. Aggrieved thereto, petitioner made representations dated 9.9.1983 and 12.9.1983 and lastly on 6.3.1986. State Government, however, circulated seniority list of S.T.O.’s on 9.2.1987 wherein petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 19 in light of order dated 24.8.1983, whereby date of appointment for purpose of seniority of petitioner was treated as 31.12.1965. 13. Aggrieved by the above seniority list, petitioner made representation dated 18.8.1988. He was then communicated with an order dated 4.10.1988 deconfirming him, by cancelling confirmation order, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court at Lucknow on 29.11.1984 in Writ Petition No. 4822 of 1984 and subsequent orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 7186 of 1988 and 7822 of 1988. 14. Petitioner challenged this order dated 4.10.1988 in Writ Petition No. 9022 of 1988 at Lucknow, wherein this Court vide order dated 24.11.1988 stayed order dated 4.10.1988. 15. 7186 of 1988 and 7822 of 1988. 14. Petitioner challenged this order dated 4.10.1988 in Writ Petition No. 9022 of 1988 at Lucknow, wherein this Court vide order dated 24.11.1988 stayed order dated 4.10.1988. 15. Thereafter petitioner received a letter dated 24.11.1988 from Commissioner, Sales Tax pursuant to Supreme Court judgment dated 21.7.1988 given in Civil Appeal No. 973-73 of 1985 Narendra Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, (1988) 3 SCC 527 , required him to submit discharge certificate from Indian Army. 16. Petitioner complied with the said direction and submitted discharge certificate and also made a representation dated 28.11.1988 claiming that he is entitled for seniority strictly as per Rules 3 and 6 of Rules 1973. State Government thereafter passed order dated 11.1.1989 stating that in the cadre of S.T.O., petitioner shall be placed below officers appointed pursuant to their selection in the recruitment held in 1971, since he has passed combined service examination of 1975. 17. This order has been challenged on the ground that seniority of petitioner has not been determined in accordance with Rules 1973. 18. During pendency of writ petition, State Government vide order dated 14.2.1989 rejected petitioner’s representation/objection made by him pursuant to Court’s order dated 24.11.1988, hence by means of an amendment application, prayer was added in the writ petition challenging aforesaid order dated 14.2.1989. 19. Petitioner has given some further illustrations stating that one R.S. Bhandari, who was junior to him in Indian Army and was selected in Sales Tax Department in the competitive examination held in 1977, was given seniority below the batch of 1964 while petitioner, who was selected in first opportunity in 1975, has been denied said benefit. Similarly, R.C. Joshi, an officer junior to petitioner in Indian Army, who was selected alongwith petitioner in the cadre of S.T.O., has been given seniority below the batch of 1965. 20. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that the judgment dated 21.7.1988 in N.N. Pandey v. State of U.P. (Supra) was reviewed and matter was re-heard and decided vide judgment dated 9.3.1989. In the light of Supreme Court’s judgment dated 9.3.1989, in N.N. Pandey v. State of U.P., a fresh order was passed on 22.6.1989 determining seniority of petitioner below batch of directly recruited S.T.O.’s of 1969 batch. In the light of Supreme Court’s judgment dated 9.3.1989, in N.N. Pandey v. State of U.P., a fresh order was passed on 22.6.1989 determining seniority of petitioner below batch of directly recruited S.T.O.’s of 1969 batch. It is stated that since petitioner’s seniority has now been re-determined vide order dated 22.6.1989 and he has been placed below officers in S.T.O.’s cadre recruited in 1969 competitive examination, writ petition has rendered infructuous. 21. Petitioner though did not dispute Supreme Court’s review order and re-determination of his seniority but submitted that there was another officer A.K. Khare, who joined Indian Army alongwith him on 27.9.1963 and was demobilised on 1.10.1967, again recalled in Indian Army in December 1971 and demobilised in March 1972, has been placed in seniority above him. 22. There are two supplementary-affidavits filed by petitioners. First supplementary-affidavit sworn on 13.9.2005 repeats the facts about Sri A.K. Khare and claims that petitioner has been discriminated. Another supplementary-affidavit sworn on 9.4.2012, has brought on record a fact that Writ Petition No. 9020 of 1988, filed against deconfirmation order dated 4.10.1988, has been dismissed as infructuous on 5.4.2005. 23. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that service rendered by him in N.C.C. should be treated as service rendered continuously in defence service and, therefore, petitioner should be deemed to have been demobilised on 27.3.1977 and, therefore, he is entitled for seniority as if he qualified at second opportunity and it should be taken from the date when he attained 22 years of age, in the light of Rule 6 of Rules 1973. In order to suggest that service rendered in N.C.C. is a defence service, he placed before us provisions of National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1948’) and Rules framed thereunder. 24. Learned standing counsel, per contra, contended that seniority of petitioner was revised vide order dated 22.6.1989 and there is no challenge to aforesaid order in the writ petition. Though once petitioner got his petition amended but no challenge to order dated 22.6.1989, therefore, no infterference is called for by this Court inasmuch as the order determining his seniority below 1970 batch of S.T.O.’s has been recalled and petitioner’s seniority has been modified by placing him below batch of 1969 S.T.O.’s, which order has not challenged at all and, therefore, the same has attained finality. 25. 25. Counsel for petitioner submitted that since petitioner has throughout raised his grievance by claiming seniority strictly as per Rule 6 of Rules, 1973 and has been discriminated with other serving officers, therefore, writ petition cannot be said to have rendered infructuous. 26. Prima facie, we are satisfied that petitioner’s seniority having been revised by order dated 22.6.1989 and petitioner’s seniority has been determined below directly recruited S.T.O.’s of competitive examination of 1969 and this order having not been assailed, writ petition challenging earlier order being no more operative, has rendered infructuous. 27. However, since an important question of law has also been raised alongwith plea of discrimination, we are of the view that in order to set the controversy at rest for all times to come, grievance of petitioner be examined and decided on merits also. 28. Court takes judicial notice of the fact that due to Chinese aggression in 1962, President of India proclaimed emergency on 1.11.1962 under Article 352 of Constitution of India. Grave threat to security to the nation, made strengthening of Armed Forces was necessary. Country required mass recruitment of Army personnel in different cadres. Reflecting to call of nation, a large number of young persons chose carrier in Armed Forces instead of other softer option and were recruited in large number to serve nation. Emergency so proclaimed was ultimately revoked on 10.1.1968. 29. Recruitment in Army included Emergency Commissioned Officer and Short Service Commissioned Officers. These officers were demobilised after serving out their tenure or on revocation of emergency. Some officers were also demobilised having become disabled. 30. The officers, who were recruited in Indian Defence Forces were quite young since minimum age for recruitment was 20 years. Therefore, for providing better opportunities in future carrier, Governor of U.P. in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution, framed U.P. Non-Technical (Class-II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1968’). There was a reservation provided for demobilised officers in Class-II Non-Technical Services in the State of U.P. to the extent of 20%. The aforesaid rules were applicable to demobilised officers, who were commissioned to Armed Forces during emergency. They were given benefit in the matter of seniority by providing a legal fiction that they would have entered into service at their second opportunity for competitive examination. 31. The aforesaid rules were applicable to demobilised officers, who were commissioned to Armed Forces during emergency. They were given benefit in the matter of seniority by providing a legal fiction that they would have entered into service at their second opportunity for competitive examination. 31. In 1971, again there broke another war with Pakistan and again external emergency was proclaimed on 3.12.1971. A number of Emergency and Short Service Commissioned officers were recruited in Armed Forces of Union of India. This gave rise to another set of Rules namely Rules, 1973. This time reservation of vacancies in Class-II Non-Technical Services in U.P., available to demobilised officer was to the extent of 10% only. The benefit was available to those officers, who were commissioned between 1.11.1962 to 10.1.1968 and those who joined on or after 3.12.1971 and released at any time thereafter. 32. There is a third set of Rules also i.e. U.P. Non-Technical (Class-II)/Group-B Services) Appointment of Demobilised Officers Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1980’), but we find no application thereof in the case at hand, hence we are not discussing the same at all. 33. Rule 1973 defines the term “Armed Forces of the Union” as also Disabled Defence Service Officers vide Rule 2 (1) and (2) respectively, which read as under : “2. Definition : In these rules unless the context otherwise requires : (1) “Armed Forces of the Union” means the, Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Union and includes the Armed Forces of the former Indian states, (2) “Disabled Defence Service Officer” means a commissioned officer who while serving in the Armed Forces of the Union was disabled in the course of operations against the enemy or in disturbed areas:” (emphasis added) 34. Rule 3 provides for reservation of vacancies. Relevant Rule 3(1) of Rules 1973 is as under : “(3) Reservation of Vacancies : (1) Ten percent of the permanent Vacancies in all non-technical (Class II) services to be filled substantively by direct recruitment through competitive examination in any year, shall be reserved for being filled in by the Disabled Defence Service Officers, emergency Commissioned officers and the short service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union who were commissioned on or after November 1, 1962, but before January 10, 1968, and again on or after December 3, 1971 and released at any time thereafter. Provided that the reservation so made shall be utilized first for the appointment of Disabled Defence Service Officer and if any vacancy remain unfilled, the same shall be then be made available to other emergency commissioned officers and short service commissioned officers.” (emphasis added) 35. Rule 6 provides for seniority and pay and reads as under : “Seniority and pay :(1) Seniority and pay of candidates appointed against the vacancies (reserved under sub-rule (1) of rule 3), shall be determined on the assumption that they entered the service concerned at their second opportunity, of competing for recruitment, and they shall be assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidates of the relevant competitive examination; Provided that any such candidate who had two opportunities before the date of his joining the training prior to his commission, whether he actually availed any such opportunity or not, shall be assigned the same year of allotment as successful candidate of the first competitive examination held after the said date. Explanation :The year of a candidate’s second opportunity will be determined by the date of his birth in relation to the prescribed minimum age for competing for recruitment to the service. (2) Seniority inter se of candidates who are appointed against vacancies reserved under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 and allotted to a particular year, shall be determined according to the merit list prepared by the Ayog on the basis of the results of their performance at the examination. (3) All candidates appointed against vacancies reserved under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 and allotted to any particular year shall rank below the candidates who were successful at the competitive examination held for recruitment to the service in that year. (4) The pay of candidates appointed against vacancies referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 3 shall so be determined in the same manner as indicated in sub-rule (1) of this rule but their seniority shall be determined in accordance with the foregoing sub-rules only if and at the point of time when they are appointed substantively against permanent vacancies.” (emphasis added) 36. The aforesaid rules have been considered at length in N.N. Pandey v. State of U.P. (Supra). The aforesaid rules have been considered at length in N.N. Pandey v. State of U.P. (Supra). Court in its judgment dated 9th March 1989 held following interpretation of Rule 6, which is as under : “It is true that rule 6 does not provide for the period between demobilisation and recruitment of a war service candidate in the civil service. Nor does it forbid consideration of such period. It cannot, however, be denied that after the discharge from war service, there will be some lapse of time for the recruitment of a candidate in the Provincial Civil Service. Immediately after discharge, one cannot get himself recruited in the Provincial Civil Service. There is a question of competing in the examination. Rule 6 does not provide for any gap to be taken into consideration, yet it is apparent that some reasonable period has to be allowed to a candidate so as to enable him to avail himself of the opportunity of appearing at the competitive examination for his recruitment in the Provincial Civil Service. It cannot be gain said that to compete in the examination, a candidate has to make preparation for that competitive examinations are generally difficult and, in our opinion, at least two years’ time should be allowed to a candidate, after his discharge, for his preparation for the competitive examination and that will be his first opportunity. The second opportunity will arise in the next year, that is, in the third year of his discharge from the armed forces. In other words, he should be allowed three years for competing in the relevant examination for recruitment in the civil service. Evenafter he becomes successful, he is not recruited immediately. There is the question of availability of vacancies and posting. It is common knowledge that some time is taken for posting. On a proper construction of rule 6, the period spent by a candidate for competing in the examination which, in our opinion, will not be more than three years, and the period of time taken for his recruitment or posting will also be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the seniority of a war service candidate. Thus, if a candidate is discharged in the year 1968, he should be given three years’ time to avail himself of the opportunity of competing in the examination. Thus, if a candidate is discharged in the year 1968, he should be given three years’ time to avail himself of the opportunity of competing in the examination. Suppose he is successful in the examination held in 1971 and posted in 1973. In view of rule 6, he would be deemed to have entered service at the second opportunity of competing for recruitment and the entire period from the date of assumed entry in the service upto his recruitment in 1973 shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing seniority and pay. If, however, candidate does not avail himself of the opportunity within three years of his discharge from war service or takes the examination but becomes unsuccessful, the period between his discharge and subsequent recruitment will not be taken into account for the purpose of computing the seniority. Rule 6 should be given a reasonable interpretation. We do not find any reason to interpret rule 6 in a way which will be doing injustice to the appellants who have been recruited under the Service rules after competing successfully in the examination.” (emphasis added) 37. It is thus, clear that, demobilised officer, after his discharge, if appointed in civil service on the basis of competitive examination, it would be assumed that he has joined service at second opportunity of competing for recruitment. The second opportunity has been explained in Rule 6 (Explanation) but this benefit would be available to a candidate if he has availed opportunity of competitive examination within three years of his discharge from war service. However, if he does not avail opportunity to appear in competitive examination in three years from the date of discharge, or takes examination but becomes unsuccessful, period between his discharge and subsequent recruitment will not be taken into account for the purpose of computing seniority. 38. In other words, if a demobilised officer, does not get recruited within three years of release from defence service and takes a longer time, he would have to get only three years for the purpose of seniority and not the entire period between recruitment and posting. 39. 38. In other words, if a demobilised officer, does not get recruited within three years of release from defence service and takes a longer time, he would have to get only three years for the purpose of seniority and not the entire period between recruitment and posting. 39. Rules, 1973 came to be considered in several other matters also namely, Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 2 SCC 622 , Dilbag Singh v. State of U.P., (1995) 4 SCC 495 , Mahesh Chand v. State of U.P., (2000) 10 SCC 492 , State of U.P. v. Dinkar Sinha, (2007) 10 SCC 548 , and Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 7 SCC 743 , but we find that in none of the aforesaid cases, interpretation of Rule 6 as given in N.N. Pandey v. State of U.P. (Supra) has been deviated. 40. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Kumar Dwivedi v. Union of India and others, 2014(6) ADJ 236 (DB), has also considered the aforesaid rules in but therein also we do not find anything different from what has been said in N.N. Pandey v. State of U.P. (Supra) with respect to interpretation of Rule 6 of Rules 1973. 41. Petitioner has admitted that he was demobilised from Indian Army on 1.10.1967. He did not appear in competitive examination held for post of Sales Tax Officer within three years thereafter. It is also admitted that he appeared for first time in the competitive examination of 1975. What he actually claims is that his re-appointment/employment in N.C.C. on 23.12.1967 and continuous working therein upto 27.3.1977, should be treated as service rendered in Defence Services of Union and he should be treated an officer demobilised in 1977 so as to get benefit of Rule 6 of Rules, 1973 as interpreted in N.N. Pandey v. State of U.P. (Supra). 42. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Rules 1973 talk service rendered in Armed Forces of the Union. Rule 2 (2) defines the term “Disabled Defence Service Officer” and states that it means a Commissioned Officer, who while serving in Armed Forces of the Union was disabled. The term “Armed Forces of the Union” is also explained in Rule 2(1) stating that it means Naval, Military or Air Forces of Union and includes Armed Forces of Former Indian States. 43. The term “Armed Forces of the Union” is also explained in Rule 2(1) stating that it means Naval, Military or Air Forces of Union and includes Armed Forces of Former Indian States. 43. Rule 3 provides reservation of vacancies, which clearly says that vacancies are reserved for being filled up by Disabled Defence Officer, which term would attract the definition of Disabled Defence Service Officer under Rule 2(2) and Emergency Commissioned Officer and Short Service Officer of “Armed Forces of the Union” which would attract the definition of Armed Forces of the Union under Rule 2(1). 44. In fact, benefit of Rules, 1973 is applicable to officers of Armed Forces of the Union and nothing else. The term ‘Armed Forces of the Union’ is confined to service rendered in Naval, Military or Air Force of the Union. By no stretch of imagination N.C.C. can be said to be an “Armed Forces of the Union”. 45. Learned counsel for petitioner takes pain in placing before us N.C.C. Act, 1948 to show that members of Armed Forces are appointed thereunder, hence service rendered in N.C.C. must be treated as a service rendered in Armed Forces. Submission is thoroughly misconceived. N.C.C. is a different concept altogether. The Act was enacted in 1948 with a view to overhaul the then existing system of training to students in Universities and educational institution and for that purpose to create an Officers Training Corps. Statement of Objects and Reasons states as under : “It is considered that the present University Officers Training Corps should be overhauled, but at the same time it is felt that full development of character and the capacity for leadership will be possible only when the requisite training is given to boys and girls while they are young and impressionable. The problem is essentially educational which can be solved adequately only if the Educational Authorities takes an active interest in this aspect of training and make it an integral part of school education. A good beginning to achieve this end can be made by the introduction of cadet training in schools and universities. With that object in view the present Bill has been drafted. These units will be officered by members of the teaching staff, but regular training will be imparted wherever necessary by trained regular officers. A good beginning to achieve this end can be made by the introduction of cadet training in schools and universities. With that object in view the present Bill has been drafted. These units will be officered by members of the teaching staff, but regular training will be imparted wherever necessary by trained regular officers. Provision is also included in the Bill for the raising of additional units as the exigencies of circumstances may require. The National Cadet Corps Committee recommended that open units should be constituted to which recruitment will be made from amongst boys earning a livelihood and the object of cl.7 is to provide for such units.” (emphasis added) 46. The term ‘Corps’ is defined in Section 2, which is as under : “corps” means the National Cadet Corps constituted under this Act.” 47. Section 3 provides constitution of N.C.C. stating that there shall be raised and maintained in the manner hereinafter provided, a Corps to be designated the National Cadet Corps. Section 4 provides that Central Government may constitute in any State one or more units of the Corps, members of which shall be recruited from amongst the students of any university or school, and may disband or reconstitute any unit so constituted. 48. The appointment of officers can be made by Central Government from amongst members of staff of any university or school or otherwise. 49. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 13 of N.C.C. Act, 1948 rules have been framed namely, National Cadet Crops Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1948’). 50. The appointment of officers in N.C.C. is governed by part 4 of Rules, 1948. Qualification is provided under Rule 6, which provides that besides others a person dismissed from Armed Forces shall not be appointed. If he is discharged from Territorial Force etc., he may be given relaxation of age. 51. The procedure of appointment is contained in Rule 17 and 21 of Rules 1948, which read as under : “17. Qualification is provided under Rule 6, which provides that besides others a person dismissed from Armed Forces shall not be appointed. If he is discharged from Territorial Force etc., he may be given relaxation of age. 51. The procedure of appointment is contained in Rule 17 and 21 of Rules 1948, which read as under : “17. Application for Appointment.—(1) A person desirous of being appointed as an officer in the Senior Division shall apply direct to the Vice-Chancellor of the University or the Director of National Cadet Corps of the State or the Director of Public Instructions, as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government, with one copy to the College, and thereupon the Principal of the College shall forward his recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor, the Director National Cadet Corps of the State or the Director of Public Instructions as the case may be. (2) A person desirous of being appointed as an officer in the Junior Division shall apply to the Headmaster of his school who shall forward the application : (a) Where there is a District Inspector of Schools, to such Inspector; (b) Where there is no District Inspector of Schools, to such other Educational Authority as may be specified in this behalf by State Government. The District Inspector of Schools or other Educational Authority, as the case may be, shall forward the application with his recommendations to the Director of Public Instruction. (3) The Principal of the College to whom an application under sub-rule (1) has been made shall cause the applicant to fill up and sign in his presence a statement in Form III. (4) The Headmaster to whom an application under sub-rule(2) has been made shall cause the applicant to fill up and sign in his presence a statement in Form III. 21. Method of Appointment.—(1) If the Vice-Chancellor of a University or the Director National Cadet Corps or the Director of Public Instruction does not reject the application, the applicant shall be directed to appear before a Selection Board, to beset up in the manner specified by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. (2) If the Selection Board recommends the applicant for appointment as an officer in the National Cadet Corps, the applicant shall be required to sign a declaration in Form III. (2) If the Selection Board recommends the applicant for appointment as an officer in the National Cadet Corps, the applicant shall be required to sign a declaration in Form III. The President of the Selection Board on being satisfied that the applicant under stands the questions put to him and consents to the conditions of service, shall sign a certificate to that effect on the said Form. (3) The State Government shall then direct the applicant to proceed to an Army unit for undergoing training for period of time specified in Part VIII of these rules. (4) On completion of training, the applicant shall be reported on and his application together with the report shall be sent to the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. (5) If the Government of India is satisfied that the applicant is suitable and qualified for appointment as an officer in the National Cadet Corps, it will commission him as an officer in the National Cadet Corps. (6) The Government of India may grant to any person without precommission training, commission as an officer- (a) in the Senior Division if he has rendered commissioned service in the Armed Forces, U.O.T.C./I.T.F./T.A./J&K Cadet Corps or national Cadet Corps (Senior Division) or has passed Certificate ‘’C’ Examination of the National Cadet Corps; (b) in the Junior Division if he has rendered service as an officer not below the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer of a Viceroy’s Commissioned Officer in the Army or a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy or a Warrant Officer in the Air Force or a Commissioned Officer in the National Cadet Corps or has passed Certificate ‘’B’ or ‘’C’ Examination of the National Cadet Corps”. (emphasis added) 52. Rule 21 (5) and (6) make very clear that an officer, if has rendered commission service in Armed Forces etc., he may not be required to have Pre-Commission Training and may be Commissioned as an officer in N.C.C. Rule 22 provides period of appointment and reads as under : “22. (emphasis added) 52. Rule 21 (5) and (6) make very clear that an officer, if has rendered commission service in Armed Forces etc., he may not be required to have Pre-Commission Training and may be Commissioned as an officer in N.C.C. Rule 22 provides period of appointment and reads as under : “22. Period of Appointment.—Subject to the provisions to Part VII of these rule, a person commissioned in the National Cadet Corps shall hold that commission as an officer in that Corps for a total period not exceeding 15 years or until he reaches 45 years of age, whichever is earlier, when he shall be discharged from the Corps : Provided that if in the opinion of the authority granting him the commission, such person continues to be physically fit and it is necessary or expedient so to do, such authority may, for a period of two years from the date the National Cadet Corps (Amendment Rules, 1977, come into force, extend the period of commission of such person upto the age of 50 years and beyond the said 15 years of service.” 53. We do not find anything in N.C.C. Act, 1948 or Rules, 1948, which may show that an officer appointed/commissioned as an officer in N.C.C., shall be treated to be an officer in Armed Forces of Union. 54. For functional purposes under Rule 21(5), since N.C.C. Training relates to combatant and other kind of training, the officer of Armed Forces have been authorized to supervise N.C.C. units as Commanding Officer and Officer Commanding the unit etc. but an officer appointed or commissioned in N.CC. is not a member of Armed Forces of the Union. 55. We have examined N.C.C. Act, 1948 and Rule, 1948 to test the submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that an officer in N.C.C. must be treated to be a member of Armed Forces of the Union, but find nothing therein to support him. It is very clear from Rules 1973 that benefit was applicable only to demobilised officers of Armed Forces i.e. Naval, Military, Air Force and Territorial Army. Petitioner has admitted that he was demobilised from Indian Army on 1.10.1967. He ceased to be an active member of Indian Army on 1.10.196. His appointment in N.C.C. was a different employment under N.C.C. Act 1948 and Rules 1948. It was a new, fresh and different commission. Petitioner has admitted that he was demobilised from Indian Army on 1.10.1967. He ceased to be an active member of Indian Army on 1.10.196. His appointment in N.C.C. was a different employment under N.C.C. Act 1948 and Rules 1948. It was a new, fresh and different commission. Hence it cannot be said that he continued to work in Armed Forces from 23.12.1967 to 27.3.1977. His claim that he was continuing in Armed Forces from 23.12.1967 till 27.3.1977 is thoroughly misconceived. As already stated, petitioner did not qualify for appointment in the cadre of S.T.O. within three years of his demobilisation i.e. 1.10.1967 could not have got advantage of Rule 6 as claimed in view of what is already explained in N.N. Pandey’s case. Service rendered by petitioner in N.C.C. being a service different than service rendered in Armed Forces/Defence Services, therefore, the same would not confer any benefit upon him. 56. In the result, we are clearly of the view that seniority determined by order dated 22.6.1998 is correct and warrants no interference. 57. The writ petition has no merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. 58. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.