HC slaps Rs 10 lakh cost on HPSC for denying soldier’s son reservation benefit

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. The candidate was denied the benefit of reservation on the grounds that he did not attach the requisite certificate. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu asserted that 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 sub inspector 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 also directed the commission to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law without further delay.  For the purpose, the court set a three-month deadline.

“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.

In his detailed order, Justice Sindhu observed the commission issued the advertisement in June 2021 for recruitment of 400 sub inspectors (male) and 65 sub inspectors (female). The petitioner’s father suffered injuries from a rocket launcher during military operation in Sri Lanka in 1995 and both his hands were injured resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 90 per cent. Consequently, he was discharged from the army.

The state’s stand in the matter 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 ESM dependent.

Referring to the pro forma, Justice Sindhu asserted 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). “It is specifically observed that only one eligibility certificate is to be issued…,” the Bench added.

“The court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-commission has grossly erred while depriving the petitioner of his lawful claim and as such, negated the Rule of Law,” Justice Sindhu concluded.