1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.3168, 3013, 3165, 3418, 3420, 3512, 3514, 3558, 3730, 4017, 4040, 4486, 4522, 4524, 4600, 5971 & 8784 of 2025 Date of decision: 23.07.2025 1. CWP No.3168 of 2025 Harish Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.3013 of 2025 Surender & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.3165 of 2025 Mohan Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.3418 of 2025 Rakesh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 5. CWP No.3420 of 2025 Jyoti Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. -2- 6. CWP No.3512 of 2025 Kuldeep Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 7. CWP No.3514 of 2025 Duni Chand. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 8. CWP No.3558 of 2025 Ashok Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 9. CWP No.3730 of 2025 Desh Raj & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 10. CWP No.4017 of 2025 Sandeep. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 11. CWP No.4040 of 2025 Sem Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. -3- 12. CWP No.4486 of 2025 Vijay Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 13. CWP No.4522 of 2025 Ravi Kant. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 14. CWP No.4524 of 2025 Kamlesh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 15. CWP No.4600 of 2025 Sunil Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 16. CWP No.5971 of 2025 Jakir Beg & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 17. CWP No.8784 of 2025 Chander Parkash & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. -4- Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Mr. Dewa Nand, Mr. Rohit Chauhan, Mr. Arun Kaushal, Mr. Shagun Sharma, Mr. I.S. Narwal, Mr. Bhishm Sharma, Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Mr. Het Ram, Mr. Rahul, Mr. Hemant Thakur vice Mr. T.K. Verma and Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocates, in respective petitions. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent-Sainik Welfare Department. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The common issue involved in all these writ petitions is whether the cut-off date fixed by respondent No.4– Director, Sainik Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh in the notice dated 21.02.2025, for determining the eligibility of Ex- Servicemen for recruitment to the posts of Police Constable (Ex-Servicemen category) is in consonance with law. -5- Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions have been taken up together for adjudication. For convenience, the facts and documents are being referred to hereinafter from lead case CWP No.3168 of 2025 (Harish Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case. 3(i). The Government of Himachal Pradesh accorded approval for filling up 1226 posts of Police Constable through letter dated 30.01.2024, out of which, 123 posts were reserved for Ex-Serviceman category. In furtherance thereof, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC hereinafter) issued an advertisement on 04.10.2024 inviting online applications from desirous and eligible male candidates for recruitment to 708 posts of Constable (Male) Class-III (Non- Gazetted). Respondent No.3-Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, sent requisition to respondent No.4 on 13.12.2024 for filling up 123 posts of Constable in the -6- respondent-Police Department under the Ex-Servicemen quota. Respondent No.4-Director, Sainik Welfare Department was directed to sponsor the names of Ex-Servicemen against the requisitioned 123 posts of Constable. 3(ii). Respondent No.4 issued a notice on 01.01.2025 detailing the aforesaid selection process and the posts of Police Constable to be filled up from the Ex-Servicemen category. Clause 2(b) of the notice spelt out that age of Ex-Servicemen should not be more than 45 years as on 01.01.2024 and further that only those Ex-Servicemen born on and after 01.01.1979 shall be considered. In terms of Clause 3 of the notice, all such ex-servicemen, who were discharged from Armed Forces w.e.f. 01.01.2022 to 01.01.2024, were eligible for nomination. Clause 5 of the notice acknowledged that the waiting panel of Ex-Servicemen is prepared in accordance with National Employment Service Manual, Volume-I issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Directorate General of Employment, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NES Manual’). These three clauses read as under:- -7- All the petitioners had been discharged from Indian Army between 01.01.2022 & 01.01.2024, and as per case set up by them, were eligible to be considered under the notice dated 01.01.2025 for recruitment against 123 posts of Constable meant for Ex-Servicemen. 3(iii). One of the Ex-Serviceman, namely Sh. Ajay Kumar, instituted CWP No.919 of 2025 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) regarding the cut-off date fixed under the notice dated 01.01.2025 issued by respondent No.4. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.01.2025 with direction to the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioner (therein) within four weeks. -8- 3(iv). As per the replies filed by the respondents, to comply with the aforesaid directions, respondent No.4 addressed a communication on 27.01.2025 to respondent No.1-Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, seeking clarification for fixing cut-off date for ex-servicemen to calculate break in service between the date of discharge from Armed Forces and date of enrolment in Police, in view of the Rule position existing in the Police Department. 3(iv)(a). Respondent No.1 in turn wrote to respondent No.3 on 01.02.2025 seeking his views on the issue. Respondent No.3 vide his office letter dated 13.02.2025 opined that:-  The cut off date of eligibility has been fixed as 01.01.2024 for all categories in the advertisement notice dated 04.10.2024 issued by HPPSC. Under the Police Rules, maxi- mum age limit for Ex-Servicemen for being recruited as Constable is 45 years if they present themselves for re-enrol- ment and are found medically fit within two years of discharge.  Age of direct recruitment is to be reckoned on the first day of the year in which posts are advertised for inviting applications or notified to Employment Exchange. -9- Taking above into consideration, respondent No.1 was of the view that cut off date of discharge for Ex- Servicemen should be reconciled with 01.01.2024, i.e. date set out for determining eligibility as this would be in consonance with the Police Rules. Some pertinent observations made by respondent No.3 are extracted hereinafter:- “7. The past practice, when recruitment notice was used to be issued by this office, was to calculate the two years, if they present themselves for re-enrollment and are found medically fit within two years of voluntarily taking their discharge, on cutoff date advertised by this office for collectively for all categories by way of general recruitment. 8. At this time, the recruitment is being conducted by the HP Public Service Commission, and the notice for recruitment has also been issued by them. In this notice, the cutoff date for determining age has been mentioned as 01.01.2024, and the date for determining eligibility for all essential qualifications and experience, etc., has been prescribed as the closing date for the submission of online recruitment applications (ORA). 9. In the present case of the recruitment of ex-servicemen, there is no process of advertising the posts; rather, the recruitment is done based on requisition. Therefore, the clause relating to the filling of online applications is not applicable. AS per the instructions provided in the Handbook on Personnel Matters (Vol-I), Chapter-5, Point No.5.4, the cutoff date for age is to be reckoned as the first day of the year in which the posts are advertised, i.e. 01.01.2024.” -10- 3(iv)(b) Respondent No.1, on 18.02.2025 responded to the respondent No. 4’s letter dated 27.01.2025 as under:- “Sir, I am directed to refer to you letter No.DSW Emp Ex Cell-Gen-3-31/11 Vol-105-08 dated 27 Jan 2025 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter has been examined in this department and it has been decided that:- 1. 1st January of the year in which requisition is submitted to the recruiting agency, be fixed as the date for determining age of the candidates. 2. The date of submission/placing requisition to the recruiting agency i.e. 13.12.2024 (in case of Ex-Servicemen), be fixed as the date for determining eligibility of all candidates in respect of essential qualification(s) and experience, if any, etc. Therefore, it is requested to take further necessary action accordingly. Yours faithfully (JN Uppadhyay) Deputy Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh” According to respondent No.1, (a) 1st January of the year in which requisition is submitted to the recruiting agency, be fixed as the date for determining age of the candidates and (b) 13.12.2024 was to be fixed as the date for determining eligibility of the candidates (ex-servicemen category) in respect of possession of essential qualification and experience, if any, etc. The said date, i.e. 13.12.2024, was the date when requisition was placed by the respondent-Police -11- Department upon the recruiting agency, i.e. respondent No.4, for nomination of ex-servicemen against the post of Police Constable (ex-servicemen category). In the interregnum, respondent No.4 on 15.02.2025 cancelled the screening of documents scheduled from 24.02.2025 to 20.03.2025 as per notice dated 01.01.2025. 3(v). Statedly, based upon aforesaid clarification issued by respondent No.1, respondent No.4 issued another notice on 21.02.2025 concerning recruitment of ex-servicemen against the posts of Police Constable. According to this fresh notice, only those ex-servicemen were eligible to be considered for the posts in question, who had been discharged from Army w.e.f. 13.12.2022 to 13.12.2024. Clause 2(b) of the notice made only those Ex-Servicemen eligible, who were born on and after 01.01.1979 and had not crossed 45 years of age as on 01.01.2024. Clause 5 of the fresh notice remained the same as in the previous notice dated 01.01.2025 and stipulated preparation of waiting panel of ex-servicemen in consonance with the NES Manual. Clauses 2(b), 3 & 5 of this notice read as under:- -12- In view of the cut-off dates of discharge given in Clause 3 of the notice dated 21.02.2025, the petitioners, who were discharged from Army w.e.f. 01.01.2022 to 12.12.2022 and were eligible under the previous notice dated 01.01.2025, became ineligible to be considered for the post in question. They are seeking directions to quash the notice dated 21.02.2025 to the extent it holds them ineligible for the post in question and fixes the cut-off date for determining the dates of discharge from Army between 13.12.2022 and 13.12.2024. Further, prayer has been made to issue directions to respondents to consider the petitioners as eligible candidates against 123 posts of Police Constable meant to be filled up from ex-servicemen category in terms of the requisition dated 13.12.2024. -13- Pursuant to interim order passed in these writ petitions except in CWP Nos.5971 & 8784 of 2025, the petitioners were allowed to provisionally participate in the selection process with further directions to the respondents not to declare their result without leave of the Court. Learned counsel for respondents have apprised that the result for recruitment against 123 posts of Police Constable (ex- servicemen), has not been declared. 4. Consideration. Respondent Police Department has not taken any responsibility for fixing the impugned cut-off dates of discharge from Army, pleading this to be the call of respondent No.4. And respondent No.4’s stand is that it had altered the cut-off dates fixed in the notice dated 01.01.2025 by the ones under notice issued on 21.02.2025 in view of clarification issued by respondent No.1 on 18.02.2025. According to respondent No.4, the cut-off dates for determining the eligibility of ex-servicemen vis-à-vis their dates of discharge from Army as 13.12.2022 to 13.12.2024 -14- have been fixed keeping in view the clarification issued by respondent No.1 on 18.02.2025 [extracted in para 3(iv)(b) above]. The question required to be determined is whether such clarification is in accordance with law and further, whether notice issued by respondent No.4 on 21.02.2025 fixing 13.12.2022-13.12.2024 as cut-off dates for discharge of Ex- Servicemen, is in consonance with the Rules position or not. 4(i). Rule 12.24(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to State of Himachal Pradesh, was amended vide notification dated 24.05.2013 by substituting Clause (b) thereof as under:- “(b) The maximum age limit for recruitment of Ex- servicemen in the rank of Constable in the Police Department shall be 45 years, if they present themselves for re-enrolment and are found medically fit within two years of voluntarily taking their discharge.” The amended Rule 12.24 provides that maximum age limit for recruitment of ex-servicemen to the post of Police Constable shall be 45 years, if they present themselves for re- enrolment and are found medically fit within two years of voluntarily taking their discharge. There is no dispute in this petition about the age limit set down by the respondents for -15- recruitment. Also, there is no issue that all the petitioners had presented themselves for re-enrolment with respondent No.4 within two years from taking discharge from Army. Thus, stricto senso, conditions imposed under Rule 12.24 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the respondent-State, are fulfilled by the petitioners. The above rule came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1. It was interpreted as under:- “13. It appears that this Rule has been totally misconstrued by the respondents as requirement of the Rule is – (i) an ex-serviceman should, for the purpose of recruitment, be less than 45 yeas of age; (ii) should have presented himself for re-enrollment; and (iii) found medically fit within two years of voluntarily taking his discharge. Whereas, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that duration of the gap from the date of discharge to the cut off date is more than 2 years and is rather 2 years and 1 day as calculated here-in-above. The Rule only contemplates that the re- enrollment should be within 2 years and nothing more. 14. To say the least, interpretation placed by the respondents on the aforesaid Rule is erroneous and defeats the object of the reservation provided for ex-servicemen. 15. Even otherwise, cut off date prescribed in the advertisement is only for the purpose of calculating the upper and lower age limit of the candidates as would be evident from the clause, which reads as under:- “The cut off date for calculation of upper and lower age limit of the candidates will be 1.1.2019 for all categories.” 1 CWP No. 2460/2020, decided on 18.08.2020 -16- Rajesh Kumar 1 also took notice that similar Rule had been struck down earlier by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.2 as under:- “Rule 12.24 sub clause (1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is on the subject of enrollment of ex-soldiers, reservists and ex police officers and lays down conditions as regards reenrollment in the rank of Constable. Rule 12.24 sub clause (1) sub clause (c) on the strength of which the offending clause in clause 4 (b) of the advertisement is sought to be justified stipulates that a break of service between the date of enrollment in the police and date of discharge from previous army employment shall not exceed two years and there must not have been more than two breaks in service in all. At the very outset, it requires notice that Rule 12.24 and the conditions contained therein regulate re-enrollment in the rank of Constable in respect of ex soldier, reservists and ex police officers. The provisions contained in Rule 12.24 would not hold the field in so far as the fresh recruitment to the post of Male Constable in the Punjab District Police Cadre is concerned. To such extent the reliance placed upon Rule 12.24 clause (1) sub clause (c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 to justify the stipulation contained in the later part of clause 4 sub clause (b) of the advertisement dated 12.9.2010 as regards the gap between re-employment and discharge from service to be not more than 24 months is clearly misconceived. Even otherwise, the very purpose and objective of promulgation of the 1982 Rules was as regards rehabilitation of ex-service men in terms of consideration of their claim for recruitment to the State Civil Services and posts connected with the affairs of the State of Punjab and towards such objective providing for reservation as also relaxation of age. Even if, it was to be accepted that the offending part of clause 4 sub clause (b) is on the strength of Rule 12.24 clause (1) sub clause (c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, still the same cannot be permitted to operate as the same would defeat the very objective 2 2014(1) ILR (P&H) 5114 -17- for which the relaxation in age had been provided to the ex-service men and would in fact frustrate the 1982 Rules itself. The petitioners in the light of the relaxation provided under Rule 6 of the 1982 Rules and in terms thereof by deducting the period of their service in the Armed Forces and the resultant age not exceeding the maximum age limit prescribed in the advertisement i.e. 25 years by more than 3 years are clearly vested with a right for consideration for recruitment to the post of Male Constable subject to the other eligibility conditions as regards qualifications etc. as also strictly in order of merit determined in the recruitment/selection process. The later part of clause 4 sub clause (b) cannot operate to the detriment and prejudice of the righs of the petitioners for recruitment to the post in question so as to take away the benefit of age relaxation as provided in terms of clause 4 sub clause (b) as also Rule 6 of the 1982 Rules. In law the offending later part of clause 4 sub clause (b) cannot be permitted to hold the field so as to render earlier portion of relaxation under the relevant clause to be redundant. It would require notice that Rule 12.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was already in the statute book while promulgating the 1982 Rules which were in the nature of a beneficial legislation in favour of the ex-service men. Even though, it has been held that Rule 12.24 clause 1 sub clause (c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 hold the field only as regards re-enrollment to the post of Constable and would have no applicability as regards fresh recruitment to the post of Constable for vacancies reserved for ex-service men are concerned, still both the provisions would have to be read harmoniously so as to ensure that the object sought to be achieved in terms of the age relaxation provided under Rule 6 of the 1982 Rules is infact achieved. The 1982 Rules would have to be construed in the nature of a particular provision governing the category of ex-service men, whereas Rule 12.24 of the Punjab Police Rules are in the nature of general provisions. In the light of the facts of the present case the particular provisions would be held to be overriding the general provisions. Rule 9 of the 1982 Rules crystalize the matter further as it is mandated that for all such matters not specifically provided for in the 1982 Rules, an ex-service man appointed against a reserved vacancy would be governed by the concerned service rules. The subject of age and relaxation in terms thereof has been specifically provided for under the 1982 Rules and as such in terms of Rule 9 sub clause (2) the concerned service rules i.e the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 would have to be read subject to the provisions of the 1982 Rules and are required to be construed accordingly. -18- For the reasons recorded above, the later part of clause 4 sub clause (b) in the advertisement dated 12.9.2010 (Annexure p-7) which read in the following terms; "Inspite of this, the gap between re-employment and discharge service should not be more than 24 months (2 years)." is held to be bad in law and consequently would cease to operate in so far as the claim of the ex-service men for consideration of the claim for recruitment to the post in question is concerned. Resultantly, the process of selection/recruitment shall be finalized and the claim of the petitioners, who had been permitted to participate in the selection process in terms of passing of interim order, would be considered strictly in terms of the other stipulations contained in the advertisement and as per their merit determined. The petitioners, however, will not be considered ineligible only on account of the gap between discharge from army service and seeking employment in the Punjab District Police Cadre to be in excess of 24 months.” Though Rule 12.24 is not under challenge in these petitions, nonetheless it cannot be ignored that object of providing reservation to ex-servicemen is for their rehabilitation in terms of consideration of their claims for recruitment to State Civil Services. 4(ii). According to the respondents, even though requisition was sent to respondent No.4 on 13.12.2024 for nominating the ex-servicemen to be recruited against 123 posts of Police Constable, yet under office letter dated 18.02.2025, the date of determining the eligibility qua age was ordered to be taken as 01.01.2024, in view of following Clause -19- 5.4 of Chapter-V in the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-I issued by Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh, which provided for fixing the age limit on the first day of the year in which the posts are advertised:- “The age limit for direct recruitment is to be reckoned on the first day of the year in which the posts are advertised for inviting applications or notified to the Employment Exchanges as the case may be.” The clarification issued by respondent No.1 on 18.02.2025 [extracted in para 3(iv)(b) above], fixes 01.01.2024 as the date for determining age of the candidates and 13.12.2024 as the date for determining eligibility of candidates in respect of essential qualification and experience etc. The clarification does not set out any limit for determining the cut-off dates for discharge of ex-servicemen from Army for determining their eligibility. Whereas, it is the stand of respondent No.4 that it has fixed as cut off dates of discharge from Army 13.12.2024 to 13.12.2022 for determining eligibility of ex-servicemen based upon aforesaid classification issued by respondent No.1. It appears that respondent No.4 read something in the letter dated 18.02.2025, which is otherwise not visible in -20- the letter. Respondent No.4 perhaps presumed that 13.12.2024, the date fixed by respondent No.1 for determining the eligibility, in respect of possession of essential qualifications and experience, was also required to be set out as the date for determining the eligibility vis-à-vis date of discharge of ex-servicemen from the Army and accordingly, issued second notice on 21.02.2025, which stipulated in Clause 3 that only those ex-servicemen would be eligible to be considered for employment against 123 posts of Police Constable meant for ex-servicemen category, who had taken discharge from Army between 13.12.2022 and 13.12.2024, i.e. two years preceding the date of requisition. This assumption was erroneous. Fixation of such cut-off dates has no basis in the instructions dated 18.02.2025. 4(iii). In case, the Police Rules are taken into consideration then once 01.01.2024 has been given as the date for determining the age of the candidates then period of two years discharge has to be logically construed preceding that date, i.e. 01.01.2022 corresponding to 01.01.2024. Any contrary interpretation would have the possible effect of making the ex-servicemen becoming overage on 13.12.2024 -21- and getting debarred from participating in the recruitment process under the Police Rules. Thus, the date-01.01.2024 has direct nexus for determining the cut-off date for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility of ex-servicemen, as an ex- serviceman over the age of 45 years is not eligible to participate in the recruitment process. This becomes evident from Clause 2(b) of the notice issued by respondent No.4 on 21.02.2025, which reads as under:- A person born on 01.01.1979 will be 45 years 11 months and 12 days old as on 13.12.2024, the day the requisition was sent. Whereas, Rule 12.24(1) of the Police Rules as amended on 24.05.2013 provides ‘maximum age limit for recruitment of Ex-Servicemen as Constable shall be 45 years if they present for re-enrolment and are found medically fit within two years of taking discharge’. The two year condition mentioned therein has to be read harmoniously with the cut off date prescribed for determining the age limit, i.e. 01.01.2024, or else the object of Rules might get defeated. -22- 4(iv). Further, the cut-off dates fixed by respondent No.4 for determining the eligibility of ex-servicemen vis-à-vis their dates of discharge from Army, is also not in consonance with the NES Manual. It will be apposite to mention here that in terms of the notices issued by respondent No.4 on 01.01.2025 as also on 21.02.2025, the waiting panel of the ex-servicemen is to be prepared strictly in consonance with the aforesaid NES Manual. The NES Manual states as under regarding preparing the waiting list:- “9.12 For submission purposes, annual list of candidates will be prepared. This list will contain the following items: 1. Serial Number 2. Registration Number and NCO Code number 3. Date of Registration 4. Name and address 5. Date of Birth 6. Educational qualifications 7. Experience 8. Remarks The following points may be kept in view while preparing the annual list: (i) The 'Annual List' will be prepared in respect of all those occupations for which vacancies were notified to the Employment Exchange during the past two years. (ii) The annual list should be prepared in advance so that it could be finalised before start of the year. The two previous years should be taken from October to September, for example for the list for 2001 the two previous years will be 1 October 1998 to 30th September 1999 and 1 October 1999 to 30th September 2000. -23- (iii) The number of candidates in the annual list for a particular occupation should be 20 time the average number of vacancies received in the past two years. The number should be further inflated by 10 per cent to allow the additional demands. However, size of the list is left to the discretion of the State Directors of Employment, who will issue necessary instructions to Employment Exchanges in their States. (iv) The provisional list so drawn may wide publicity through local leading News-papers and displaying on Notice in the Employment Exchange premises enable the candidates to point out omissions, any within period 30 days. For giving publicity to the 'Annual information about the dates of seniority up to which the candidates are covered the list different occupations not entire list will be published through newspapers. (v) The final list may be displayed the Employment Exchange and one copy may be kept in the safe custody of the Employment Officer In-charge of vacancy work. (vi) The annual list so drawn will be valid for one calendar year. No changes in list should made until the end of the year. (vii) The leftover in the annual list, i.c. could not be submitted or placed may be included in the next year's annual list. (viii) Registration cards received on transfer from one Employment Exchange to another, shall be given due seniority for of their names, in the select list even after the same has been prepared. (ix) Submission should be made in order of seniority from the select list. (x) The submission against private sector vacancies should be made out of the annual list without observing seniority. In other words, the private-sector employers may be given freedom to select anyone from the annual list for interview/selection. Similarly employers in public sector may also have freedom select applicants from the annual list. However, they will have to lay down scheme of selection in consultation with employment Officer. before selecting applicants. (xi) In case of shortage categories, or where the number of candidates on the Select List are relatively smaller, submission from the Live register can be resorted to. It should be ensured that all the cards are available the Live Register while making submissions. -24- (xii) Every candidate on the Select List should be given three chances of submission against public sector regular/long term vacancies of nature (i.e. Government/Quasi Government including local bodies organizations). There should be gap of one month between two submissions. However, where there is evidence to show that the submission made earlier, has not been entertained by the employer, for whatever reason or the applicant has not been selected, submission before one month can also be made. (xiii) After candidates has been given 3 chances of submission as referred to above his name should be kept dormant for six months. The period of dormancy after submission of candidates three times against public sector vacancies of regular/long term nature may be decided by the State Director of Employment keeping in view the size of Live Register and other local conditions. (xiv) The card of the candidate kept dormant, shall be suitably identified, by a tab indicating on it the date of his last submission. (xv) For private sector vacancies and specific short-term, leave arrangement/casual/daily wages vacancies in the Public Sector, restrictions for submission in the scheme of rotation will not apply. In other words, such vacancies will not be counted for this purpose. (xvi) If the name of a candidate has been kept dormant, he will continue to be submitted against private sector vacancies, as for this sector, it is more a question of job development and winning their confidence for better utilization of employment exchanges. (xvii) If a particular card is a lapsed/cancelled/placed, entry to this effect will also be made against the concerned registration number.” Petitioners’ contention cannot be ignored that the present recruitment drive was undertaken in the year 2024. Respondent No.4 has itself categorically stipulated in the notices dated 01.01.2025 and 21.02.2025 for preparing the waiting panel of ex-servicemen in consonance with the NES -25- Manual. In case the example given in Clause 9.12(ii) of the NES Manual is taken as the criteria for fixing the cut-off retirement period of two years for the ex-servicemen for determining his eligibility for the post then for the recruitment process for the year 2024, the period would work-out as under:- (a) 01.10.2021 to 30.09.2022. (b) 01.10.2022 to 30.09.2023. Or in other words w.e.f. 01.10.2021 to 30.09.2023. The questioned cut-off period of discharge 13.12.2022-13.12.2024 fixed by respondent No.4 in the notice dated 21.02.2025, does not match with the method of fixing the cut-off period of discharge given in Clause 9.12 of the NES Manual. Even if, the Himachal Pradesh Police Service Rules are to be given precedence, as is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents then also it has to be borne in mind that the waiting panel of ex-servicemen, as per the admitted stand of respondent No.4, is required to be prepared -26- in consonance with Clause 9.12 of the NES Manual and is required to be acted upon accordingly. 5. Conclusion. In view of above, there appears to be no legal foundation for respondent No.4 to have fixed 13.12.2022- 13.12.2024 as the cut-off dates for discharge from Army for an ex-serviceman to become eligible for the post of Police Constable. Fixing such cut-off dates is not supported either by the NES Manual or by the Police Rules. In case, NES Manual is to be followed as is also projected by respondent No.4 in the notices dated 01.01.2025 and 21.02.2025, then for the recruitment process of 2024 (as in the present case), the cut- off dates of discharge from Army will be 01.10.2021- 30.09.2023. However, no clear picture emerges in this regard under the applicable Police Rules. The Police Rules prescribe ‘45 years as the maximum age limit for an Ex-serviceman for recruitment as Police Constable if they present themselves for re-enrolment and are found medically fit within two years of voluntarily taking their discharge’. Rules do not specifically say that two years discharge period is to be counted preceding the date of determining the age eligibility or the date of requisition or the date of -27- notice/advertisement. Since the Police Rules intrinsically link the age limit of an ex-serviceman with dates of discharge, it has to be construed that once 01.01.2024 has been set down as the cut-off date for determining the age limit then the cut- off dates of discharge from Army will also necessarily have to be correlated to this cut off date for age limit, which in present case would become 01.01.2022 to 01.01.2024. Such an interpretation would also be nearer to the time period as per NES Manual if not in complete conformity. In fact a communication addressed by respondent No.3-the Director General of Police on 13.02.2025 (Annexure R-2) to respondent No.1 expresses the Police Department’s view “Therefore, we are of the view that the condition of eligibility of two years, as mentioned in PPR Rule 12.24 (b) of 2013, may be reconciled with the instructions mentioned above i.e. 01.01.2024”. The cut-off dates 13.12.2022-13.12.2024 fixed by respondent No.4 in the notice dated 21.02.2025, taking the date of requisition (13.12.2024) as the basis, are neither as per NES Manual nor as per Police Rules. For the forgoing discussion, the impugned notice dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside to -28- the extent it fixes 13.12.2022-13.12.2024 as the cut off dates of discharge for determining eligibility of Ex-Servicemen for recruitment as Police Constable under the recruitment process in question. Respondent No.1 is directed to fix the cut off dates of discharge for determining eligibility of Ex- servicemen for the recruitment process in question in consonance with the Police Rules keeping in view all applicable rules/ instructions/NES Manual etc. While refixing the dates, the observations made in this judgment be also kept in view. Taking judicial notice of such kind of writ petitions being filed every year and to avoid similar kinds of disputes arising in future, clear decision in consonance with law be taken by respondent No.1 with due deliberation with other stake holders, i.e. respondent No.3-the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.4-the Director Ex- Servicemen Employment Cell, Himachal Pradesh and the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. By way of abundant caution, it be clarified that previous precedents of fixing cut off dates of discharge of ex-servicemen, if found to be not in consonance with Rules, shall not be guiding factor for determining & fixing the cut off dates under this order. This -29- entire exercise be completed within three weeks from today, i.e. on or before 11th August, 2025. The result of selection process for Ex-Servicemen category shall not be declared till such time. All writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 23rd July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)