equities were not properly balanced in the exercise of discretion by the High Court. In Mehagaon 5 ex-servicemen had been appointed out of a total of 9 applicants while in Raun none had been so appointed. Since there was an issue with respect to the reservation policy of the ex-servicemen it would have been brought up as a service dispute and not in a PIL. The High Court should have with due respect displayed a little more restraint and balance before quashing a selection process in which the persons selected had already put in 3 years of service. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that the advertisement was made to prevent ex-servicemen from applying. While deciding these issues the High Court should have been mindful of the fact that an order for cancellation of appointment would render most of the appellants unemployed. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of High Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the Non-formal education centers, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families.
