'Shown Disrespect To Soldier Wounded In Action': High Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost On Haryana PSC For Denying Reservation Claim
The Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.10 lakh on the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for denying a rightful claim for reservation to "Dependent of Ex-serviceman (disability beyond 50%)" in the recruitment of sub-inspector post advertised in 2021.
The candidate was denied the benefit of reservation by the Commission on the ground that he failed to attach the certificate of the category of Dependent of Ex-Service Men (ESM) (Disabled). However, the Court found, that no such certificate was issued by the authorities.
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said, "The respondent-Commission has shown complete disrespect to 'a soldier wounded in action' while denying the benefit of reservation to his dependent son. The petitioner has been forced to resort avoidable litigation and fighting since November 2021. There is no quarrel that similarly situated candidates are serving for the last about three years as Sub Inspector in Haryana Police."
The Court "in order to emolliate the miseries of petitioner and as a deterrence for future" imposed a cost of Rs.10 lakh on the HPSC.
These observations were made while hearing the plea of a candidate Rahul, who applied for the post of sub-inspector post issued by HPSC in 2021, under the Dependent of Ex-servicemen disabled category (beyond 50% disability) in general category in terms of Haryana Government Instructions 1972.
It was submitted that Rahul's father suffered injuries from a rocket launcher during a military operation in 1995 (Sri Lanka), and both hands were damaged, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 90%. Consequently, he was discharged from the Army Service.
Despite securing a position in the merit list, Rahul was denied the right of consideration under DSM (Disabled) on the premise that "he did not attach a valid certificate at the time of filling the application form; hence, he has been considered in General ESM category," the plea stated.
After hearing the submissions and examining the material, the Court found that no exclusive certificate is to be issued for the category of Dependent of ESM (Disabled) by the Haryana Government.
"Thus, the Eligibility Certificate attached by the petitioner at the time of filling the online application was valid and moreover, he cannot be penalized, if at all, there is any fault on the part of the issuing authority," the Court added.
Justice Sindhu highlighted that despite asking repeatedly, the State counsel failed to show any instructions or circular that a separate Eligibility Certificate is to be issued by the Rajya Sainik Board for claiming reservation under the Dependent of Ex-servicemen (Disabled) category.
In light of the above, the Court opined that HPSC "grossly erred while depriving the petitioner of his lawful claim and as such, negated the Rule of Law."
Taking note of the plight of the candidate, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.10 lakh on HPSC and directed it to "treat the petitioner as Dependent of an Ex-serviceman (disabled beyond 50%), being duly eligible and proceed further in the matter as per law, without any further delay and necessary exercise be carried out within a period of three months..."
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.6-UOI (through VC).
Respondent Nos.7 to 15, 17, 19 to 28, 31 to 33 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 03.12.2021.
CWP qua respondent Nos.16, 18, 29, 30 & 34 withdrawn vide order dated 10.10.2023.
Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.35.
Title: Rahul v. State of Haryana and others.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 295