Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment

Calcutta High Court in Debkrishna Roy v. Union of India & Ors. (WPA No. 4852 of 2011) dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment by State Bank of India (SBI). The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, had secured employment as a primary school teacher using ex-serviceman benefits, but later applied for another position at SBI without disclosing his existing employment. The court upheld SBI’s decision, ruling that the petitioner violated the rule prohibiting dual benefit for ex-servicemen.

The petitioner, Debkrishna Roy, an ex-serviceman, was initially selected for the post of Assistant in the State Bank of India (SBI) following an interview on April 27, 2010. Around the same time, he had also secured employment as an Assistant Teacher under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education through ex-serviceman reservation benefits. Upon learning that Roy had already used his ex-serviceman benefits for the teaching job, SBI canceled his appointment, citing the Office Memorandum No. 36034/6/90-Estt.(SCT), dated April 2, 1992, which restricts ex-servicemen from availing reservation benefits for multiple employments.

The main legal issue was whether the petitioner, having already used his ex-serviceman status to secure a government-aided primary school teaching job, could avail of those benefits again to obtain employment with SBI. The Office Memorandum expressly prohibits ex-servicemen from claiming reservation for multiple government jobs. Clause (4) of the recruitment advertisement by SBI reinforced this rule, stating that once an ex-serviceman secures employment in the public or government sector, his status as an ex-serviceman ceases for future re-employment purposes.

The petitioner admitted in his affidavit that he had secured a teaching position but argued that his job in a government-aided school did not qualify as employment under the Central Government or Public Sector Undertakings (PSU). The court, however, found this argument unconvincing, emphasizing that the petitioner’s employment fell within the scope of the restrictions outlined in the Office Memorandum and SBI’s recruitment conditions.

The court scrutinized the petitioner’s affidavit, in which he had declared that he had not secured any government or PSU employment. The affidavit was found to be false, as the petitioner was already employed as a primary school teacher at the time of his application to SBI. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) highlighted that the petitioner was fully aware of the rules prohibiting multiple claims for ex-servicemen reservation benefits, yet he failed to disclose his current employment status. The court noted:

"An ex-serviceman who has once joined a Government job on the civil side after availing the benefits given to him as an ex-serviceman for his re-employment, his ex-serviceman status for the purpose of re-employment in job ceases."

The court further observed that SBI’s cancellation of the appointment was in line with the applicable rules and regulations, and the petitioner had no legal standing to challenge the decision.

The Calcutta High Court concluded that the petitioner had violated the declaration requirements under the ex-servicemen reservation rules, and SBI’s decision to cancel his appointment was justified. The writ petition was dismissed, and all related applications were disposed of without any order as to costs.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2024

Debkrishna Roy v. Union of India & Ors.