On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India made an important ruling in the case of Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Others. The decision made clear a long-standing controversy about whether officers from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) are considered “ex-servicemen” under the Punjab government’s guidelines for hiring civil servants.
The Court said that the IMNS is part of the Indian military and that its released members can get benefits for ex-servicemen under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha wrote this decision, and Justice Manoj Misra agreed with it. It settles disagreements about how to interpret the law and makes sure that all military nursing officers who have served the country are treated the same.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
The Case’s Background and Facts
The case started when the Punjab Public Service Commission put out a job posting on December 12, 2020, for the position of Extra Assistant Commissioner in the Punjab Civil Services. The ad said that there were reserved spots for “ex-servicemen,” which is what Punjab’s 1982 guidelines say they are.
Under the ex-servicemen quota, Irwan Kour, a retired Captain from the Indian Army Medical Corps, was chosen and appointed on December 9, 2022. Respondent No. 4, who was a Short Service Commission officer in the IMNS from 2013 to 2018, likewise applied in the same category, but her application was turned down. The decision was predicated on the idea that IMNS officers did not meet the requirements to be considered ex-servicemen.
The respondent took this rejection to the High Court. At first, a single judge turned down her petition. But the Division Bench changed its mind and said that she did meet Punjab’s requirements to be considered an ex-serviceman. This made Irwan Kour file an appeal because she was afraid she would lose her job because another candidate was added to the same quota category.
The main legal question
The Supreme Court’s main challenge was whether people who had left the Indian Military Nursing Service were considered ex-servicemen under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. The answer needed to figure out if IMNS members fulfilled the criteria of “military” and if they were part of the “armed forces of the Union.”
Laws and Rules
Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982, says that a “ex-serviceman” is someone who served in any rank in the Union’s Navy, Army, or Air Force and was discharged or retired under specified conditions, such as when they finished their service and received a gratuity.
The rule says that members of other auxiliary forces, such as the Defence Security Corps and the Para Military Forces, are not allowed to do this, but it does not say the same thing for IMNS soldiers.
The Central Rules of 1979 for hiring ex-servicemen back into central civil services did not apply in this situation. The Court made it clear that Article 309 of the Constitution gives the state the power to make appointments to state agencies. So, in this situation, only the Punjab Rules of 1982 were relevant.
What the law says about IMNS
The Supreme Court looked closely at the Military Nursing Service Ordinance of 1943. The IMNS is clearly characterized as an auxiliary force that is part of the Union’s armed forces in Section 3 of the Ordinance. IMNS officers have commissioned ranks, follow military law, and do their jobs within the Army’s organization.
The Court also talked about its earlier ruling in Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India, in which it said that IMNS is a part of the Indian military but is a separate type of service.
The Court decided that the IMNS is definitely part of the military, as stated in Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, because of these rules.
What Rule 2(c) Means and What It Means
The Court used a purposive reading of Rule 2(c), which stressed the reason for these kinds of reservation programs. It said that Punjab sends a lot more soldiers to the Indian Army than other states, therefore it is both a matter of policy and national interest to help veterans settle down again.
The rule’s goal is to honor everyone who helped defend the country, even those who didn’t fight. Because IMNS officers work in uniformed military jobs and are subject to military discipline and organization, leaving them out would go against the rule’s intent.
Rule 2(c) clause (iv) applies directly to the respondent because it says that people who were freed after serving their time and getting a gratuity should be included. She finished her Short Service Commission and got a gratuity, which met both requirements.
Government officials have made things clearer
The State of Punjab tried to use clarifications from the Kendriya Sainik Board from 2019 and 2021, which said that IMNS officials were not considered ex-servicemen for some programs.
The Court, on the other hand, did not agree with this argument. It said that these clarifications only pertained to central assistance programs and had no power over the restrictions that the Punjab Government made under Article 309 of the Constitution. So, they couldn’t change the legal term in Punjab’s hiring laws.
Fair Relief and Final Orders
The Court made sure that the respondent was eligible and also protected the rights of the appellant, Irwan Kour. She had already been hired and was doing her job without anyone questioning her ability to do it. Taking her out would have made things very hard after more than two years of service.
So, the Court ordered that both women should be able to use the reservation. The respondent was to be appointed and given notional seniority and service benefits but would not be entitled to back wages. It would be fair for both sides if Irwan Kour’s service wasn’t interrupted.
This landmark ruling by the Supreme Court has brought long-awaited clarity to the status of IMNS officers under state recruitment policies. By holding that they are indeed part of the military and eligible for ex-servicemen reservation, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that service to the nation, regardless of gender or role within the military, deserves equal recognition.
The judgment stands as a strong endorsement of inclusive policy-making and protects the rights of those who have contributed to national defense under difficult and demanding circumstances. It also reflects the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws in a way that furthers justice and aligns with the larger constitutional values of equality and fair treatment.
This ruling is not just about a job—it is about recognition, respect, and rightful inclusion in post-service opportunities for those who have worn the uniform in service of the nation.
