One-year discharge window for ex-serviceman status reckoned from result declaration, not application deadline, absent specific rules.

The Petitioner, a Havildar Major in the Indian Army, applied for the post of Assistant Commandant (AC) in the CAPFs Examination 2019 under the Ex-Serviceman (ESM) category

He submitted a certificate stating his Army engagement would conclude on December 31, 2020

While the Petitioner cleared the written, physical, and medical tests, the UPSC issued a show-cause notice on August 17, 2021, seeking to disqualify him

The Respondents contended that under Rule 5(c)(i) of the 1979 Rules, an ESM must be discharged within one year of the last date of application (May 20, 2019), meaning he should have been released by May 19, 2020

The Petitioner was actually discharged on March 31, 2022, following delays attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic

Additionally, the UPSC alleged misstatement because the Petitioner reported his "ESM ID" stolen in an FIR before he was officially an ESM

1. Whether the one-year period for completion of assignment under Rule 5(c)(i) of the 1979 Rules must be reckoned from the last date of application or the date of declaration of examination results.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s candidature was liable for cancellation on grounds of misstatement or suppression of material facts regarding his discharge status and employment history.

The court primarily interpreted Rule 5(c)(i) of the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, as amended in 2012, which allows serving personnel "whose assignment is due to be completed within one year" to apply for direct recruitment to Group A and B posts

It distinguished and limited the application of the DOPT OM dated April 3, 1991, noting it was based on an "Explanation" in the 1986 Rules that was deleted in the 2012 amendment

The court further relied on the principle from *Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann* that decisions proceeding on concessions have no precedential value, thereby distinguishing *Mukesh Kumar v. UOI*

Finally, it applied the principle from *Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of J&K* that any ambiguity in recruitment rules should enure to the benefit of the candidate

The Court rejected the Respondents' reliance on the 1991 OM, finding it obsolete following the 2012 rule amendments which removed the specific requirement to calculate the year from the application date

Since Rule 5(c)(i) is silent on the specific "cut-off" date for the one-year grace period, the Court noted that the rule begins with "For appointment... on the results of" the examination

Consequently, it reasoned that reckoning the year from the date of declaration of results is more logical than the application date, as the latter could force a candidate to leave the military prematurely without a guaranteed civil post

Regarding the allegations of fraud, the Court found the Petitioner's errors in his FIR and DAF (stating he was "not employed") were bona fide mistakes caused by mental stress and a misunderstanding of the forms, rather than intentional suppression, especially since he had provided details of his military service elsewhere in the application

On the second issue, it held the allegations of misstatement were insufficient to justify disqualification

The Court quashed the cancellation of the Petitioner's candidature

It directed that if an ESM vacancy is still available, the Petitioner must be processed for appointment with consequential benefits (seniority and pay fixation) but without arrears of salary