Ex-servicemen are entitled to reservation benefits repeatedly regardless of their prior civil re-employment status.

The petitioner, an ex-serviceman discharged from the Indian Army in 2017, was initially appointed as a Village Development Officer against a vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen.

He subsequently applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) following an advertisement dated 14.03.2024.

Although he was selected and recommended for the post, the Uttarakhand Subordinate Services Selection Commission (selecting body) issued a communication on 13.10.2025 declaring him ineligible.

The disqualification was based on the grounds that the petitioner had already availed himself of the ex-serviceman reservation benefit in his previous employment.

The petitioner challenged this communication before the High Court.

Whether an ex-serviceman can be denied reservation benefits for a subsequent civil appointment if they have already utilized such reservation once before.

Whether Clause 8 of the Government Order dated 22.05.2020, which restricts the use of ex-serviceman reservation to a single instance, is legally sustainable.

The Court primarily relied on the precedent established by the Division Bench in WPSB No. 491 of 2021 (dated 29.07.2025), which struck down Clause 8 of the Government Order dated 22.05.2020.

The Court applied the principle that executive instructions cannot run counter to legislation or create an "artificial classification" between ex-servicemen who are yet to be appointed and those already in civil employment.

The relevant legislation, specifically Section 2(c) of the Act defining "Purva Sainik" (Ex-servicemen), does not permit such a restrictive classification based on re-employment status.

The Court noted that the selecting body's decision to declare the petitioner ineligible was based entirely on Clause 8 of the Government Order dated 22.05.2020.

However, the Court observed that the Division Bench had already held that this specific clause suffered from the "vice of artificial classification" and was discriminatory.

Since the governing legislation includes all individuals falling under the definition of "Purva Sainik" without restriction on their re-employment status, the executive order could not override the statute.

Counsel for the respondents conceded that in light of the Division Bench judgment, the reliance on the 2020 Government Order to disqualify the petitioner was unsustainable.

Consequently, the Court found no legal basis for the selecting body to withhold the petitioner's recommendation.

The Court held that the petitioner could not be declared ineligible for the reserved vacancy simply because he had previously availed of the benefit.

The selecting body was directed to recommend the petitioner’s name afresh, and the appointing authority was ordered to take necessary action on said recommendation according to law.