Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 16 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Dilwan Singh & Ors. Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc. Etc on 25 March, 1996

User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geeta Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 August, 2012

C.W.P.No.16710 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT

CHANDIGARH

C.W.P.No.16710 of 2012

Date of Decision:- 29.08.2012

Geeta Devi ....Petitioner(s) vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) ***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ***

Present:- Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

***

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the instructions dated 26.7.1984 (Annexure P-6) to the extent it makes reservation to the children and grand-children of the Freedom Fighters conditional i.e. in case the Ex-servicemen and their dependents are not available.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is grand daughter of a Freedom Fighter. She applied in pursuance to advertisement No.4/2009 dated 13.8.2009 for the post of S.S.Master. In her application, she had specifically mentioned that she is grand-daughter of a Freedom Fighter. Five posts were reserved for the Ex-servicemen (General) and three posts were reserved for the Ex-servicemen (General) (Female). Result of the selection had been declared by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission- respondent No.3 on 31.5.2012. In the said result, the cut-off marks C.W.P.No.16710 of 2012 -2- prescribed for the Ex-servicemen (General) (Female) category are 139 m rks and the last candidate shown in the waiting list secured 138 marks Petitioner has secured 155 marks and, therefore, is more merit rious than many candidates who have been recommended. Peti oner's challenge to the instructions dated 26.7.1984 is on the ground that he reservation which has been provided for the children and grand-childr en of the Freedom Fighters is virtually rendered a nullity in case the Ex-s vicemen or the dependents of the Ex-servicemen are available. This, the c unsel contends is not sustainable, as the basic purpose for providing rese ation, was to provide job opportunities to the Ex-servicemen only and the d pendents of Ex-servicemen only step in if the Ex-servicemen are not avail ble.

Petitioner is challenging and putting forth her claim for the Ex- servicemen (General)(Female) category only where, as of now, they are very few or nil available for appointment and the posts generally in this category would, therefore, go to the dependents of the Ex-servicemen (Female). This, counsel contends, cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the dependents of the Freedom Fighters have been placed at a lower pedestal than the dependents of the Ex-servicemen. He accordingly contends that the said instructions, making the reservation conditional, cannot sustain and deserve to be quashed as the same violates the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 as well as 16 of the Constitution of India.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case. C.W.P.No.16710 of 2012 -3- It is not in dispute that there is no independent reservation provided for the dependents of the Freedom Fighters or their grand-children. It is also not in dispute that there are no statutory or constitutional rights conferred for reservation to the Freedom Fighters. A claim for reservation, therefore, has to be made out from the instructions which are issued by the Government of Haryana as it is a concession which has been conferred on a particular category and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right and, therefore, the appointing Authority is the competent Authority to determine as to what concession is to be given to which category and how. As it is not in dispute that there is no independent reservation for the dependents of the Ex-servicemen and their grand-children, the right which flows to the petitioner is only from the instructions dated 26.7.1984 (Annexure P-6) as also the instructions dated 20.3.2007 (Annexure P-11) where the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6887 of 1996 Dilwan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others has been given effect to by the respondents. This makes it amply clear that the petitioner does not have an independent right for appointment under the dependents of the Freedom Fighter and grand-children of Freedom Fighter category as the appointing Authority which is the competent Authority to grant such a concession has made it dependent upon the non-availability of the Ex- servicemen or the dependents of the Ex-servicemen. The contention of the petitioner that it violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the petitioner does not have an independent right, either statutory or constitutional, which can be pressed into service, it is rather at the mercy of the instructions, which have been C.W.P.No.16710 of 2012 -4- issued by the Government of Haryana. The claim as has been made by the petitioner in the present writ petition and the challenge to the instructions cannot be sustained and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. August 29, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE