Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
  • ftr-facebook
  • ftr-instagram
  • ftr-instagram
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Rs 10L cost imposed on panel for denying quota to soldier’s son

Matter pertains to recruitment of SIs
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Punjab and Haryana High Coyurt. File photo
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 10 lakh on the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) after asserting it showed complete disrespect to “a soldier wounded in action” while denying reservation to his dependent son.

The matter pertains to the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (SIs). The candidate was denied the benefit of reservation on the ground that he did not attach the requisite certificate. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said the petitioner-candidate was forced to resort to avoidable litigation and was fighting since November 2021, while “similarly situated candidates” were serving for the last about three years as SI in the Haryana Police.

Justice Sindhu also directed the respondent-commission to treat the petitioner as dependent of an ex-serviceman, disabled beyond 50 per cent. The court directed the commission to proceed in accordance with law and set a three-month deadline.

Advertisement

“In order to emolliate the miseries of petitioner and as a deterrence for future, the commission is burdened with exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh. The costs be paid to the petitioner within three months from receiving the order’s certified copy,” Justice Sindhu asserted.

He observed that the commission issued the advertisement in 2021 for the recruitment of 400 SIs (male) and 65 SIs (female). The petitioner’s father suffered injuries from a rocket launcher during a military operation in Sri Lanka in 1995 and his hands were injured, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 90 per cent. Consequently, he was discharged from the Army.

Advertisement

The State’s stand was that the petitioner did not attach the requisite eligibility certificate meant for dependent of ex-servicemen disabled beyond 50 per cent. Rather he simply attached the certificate being dependent of an ex-serviceman. The commission, as such, rightly considered the petitioner as an ESM dependent.

Referring to the proforma, Justice Sindhu said it was not discernible that a separate eligibility certificate was to be issued for a person claiming benefit as dependent of an ex-serviceman (disabled).

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper