Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Replication filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the vires of an amendment dated 21.5.2002 has been questioned as illegal and discriminatory. The amendment has been made to the notification dated 2.2.1982 promulgating the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (for short "the 1982 Rules"). The 1982 Rules were amended by notification dated 22.9.1992 and second proviso to Rule 4 was inserted to read that an 'Ex-Serviceman' would include the wife or the dependent child of an Ex-serviceman for purposes of direct recruitment against reserve vacancies.

It is contended that there was no bar or restriction earlier on the number of children who could avail benefit of being dependents of Ex- serviceman for public employment and the reservation was available to the wife of the Ex-serviceman as well. The impugned notification restricts the benefit to the wife or a dependent child of an Ex-serviceman. This restriction imposed by the amendment is said to be creating discrimination within the family of an Ex-serviceman. It is argued that there is no such limit or restriction on lineal descendants of freedom fighters in Punjab nor for wards of Police Personnel which include sons, daughters and brothers. It is contended that equality should be ensured among the different categories for whom such concessions are available.

In the reply filed by way of counter affidavit of Director Sainik Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh, it has been pointed out that the benefit of reservation meant for Ex-serviceman has already percolated down to the sister of the petitioner, who has been granted public employment under the State of Punjab and therefore, in terms of the amendment, the State is denuded of its power to make another appointment within the family of the Ex-serviceman.

The Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab- respondent No.4 has filed written statement detailing that the process of recruitment against the advertisement of several hundred posts of clerks in various departments has not been completed in view of the stay granted by this Court in two writ petitions mentioned in para 2 of the affidavit in reply.

4. That in view of the above mentioned facts, it is submitted that more than one wards of the Freedom Fighters and the Police Personnel have been considered for recruitment in view of the peculiar conditions and circumstances in which sacrifices were made by the Freedom Fighters and the Police Personnel for the society and the nation. These benefits of reservation are not available to wards of those policemen who have rendered service in normal conditions and circumstances. Thus the case of the petitioner is not comparable with the wards of the Freedom Fighters and wards of the Police Personnel as covered under instructions No.1(211)94-2H(1)/10176 dated 11.6.1996 (Annexure R-1/1). As the petitioner is not similarly circumstanced being in the different category i.e. dependent of an ex-serviceman, there is no discrimination in the matter of giving reservation. It is made clear that his reservation is governed by Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 and not by the policy (Annexure R-1)."