DILWAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. : Vv. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC. ETC.
.- MARCH. 25, 1996
‘JK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ]
re FT . 1 . e Service Law :
Appointment under State Government of -Haryana—Reservation for ex-servicemen—Government instructions to’ consider dependent children of ex-servicemen in absence of availability of ex-servicemen—Selection Board calling ex-servicemen and dependent children of ex-servicemen.together for consideration according to merit—For identifi cation whether candidates are dependents of ex-servicemen, Selection Board relying on the certificates issued by Sainik Board—Held, Selection Board should first consider independently the’ eligibility Of ex-servicemen and for the balance unfit illed post selection should be made from amongst dependent children of ex-servicemen—Selection Board being the recruiting agency has a duty to verify whether a candidate is a dependent son/daughter of an ex-serviceman and it cannot abdicate its function merely relying on the certificate issed by the Sainik Board. '
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT ION : Civil Appeal No. 6887 of 1996 Etc, bt oY
- From the Judgment and ower‘ 16.1293 of the Punjab & ’ Haryana High Court in CWP, No. 7412 of 1993. -
Mahabir Singh for the Appellants.
Pradeep Gupta, K-K.Mohan a and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Respondents. | mn *
. The following Order of the Court was delivered : “ +
+
Though the respondents were served i in SLP (C) No. 21297- 99104, respondents | 1 and.4 appear through counsel. In respect of respondents 2 and 3, neither AD. Card nor unseryed original Notice have been received served. hove 833 .
Cc
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.
Leave granted.
It is contended by Shri Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that the Selection Board has adopted a policy of calling the ex-servicemen and the dependent children of the ex-servicemen together to consider their cases for recruitment according to merit which would stand an impediment to the ex-servicemen. We find force in the contention. The object of reservation of the ex-servicemen is to rehabilitate them after their discharge from the defence services. As per the instructions issued by the State Government, in the absence of availability of the ex-servicemen instead of keeping those posts unfilled, the dependent children, namely, son or daughter of ex-servicemen would also to be considered. The object thereby would be that the Selection Board should first consider the claims of the ex-servicemen and have their eligibility considered independently in the first instance before the claims of the dependent children of the ex-servicemen are considered. If they are found eligible and selected, for the balance unfilled posts, the selection be done from among the dependent children of the ex-servicemen.
The other question that arises in this case is : whether the contesting respondents have satisfied the requirement as dependents of the ex-servicemen ? The Government of Haryana have clarified in their letter dated November 21, 1980 bearing No. 12/37/79/GSII that the Government have taken a policy decision on July 1, 1980 and given instructions to recruit the children, i.e. dependent sons or daughters of ex-servicemen who fulfill all the conditions of qualifications, age and other criteria prescribed for the post; they may be considered on merits for the posts reserved for the ex-servicemen to the unfilled posts. It was confined initially only to dependent children. When clarification was sought for, various criteria have been suggested to identify the defendants. The Government have examined the matter and found that only an unemployed person who is a member of the joint family and contributes to the pool of the family income by the lending help or a person who has already done his graduation or is doing postgraduation and getting merit scholarship for the studies is also eligible to be considered for appointment. In appeals @ SLP (C) No. 21297-99/94, it is specifically averred that the contesting respondents have not fulfilled the criteria referred to hereinbefore and that, therefore, they are not eligible to be considered.
-. _ DILWAN SINGH. STATE 835
Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent- Selec- , _tion Board contending that the Sainik Board had issued a certificate staling that they are the dependants ‘of the ex-servicemen. On that basis, they had become ‘eligible for consideration. The Board had accepted the same. It did not have any source for independent verification and, therefore, they have accepted them as dependents. ‘We are of the view that the Board is _ not justified in law to take’ such a stand: The Board being the recruiting agency, it is. its duty to verify and find out whether a candidate who-has laid his claim as a- dependant son’ or ‘ daughter of the deceased ex-servicemen, fulfilled the criteria referred to. earlier for recruitment to the vacancies reserved for unfilled posts of. ex-servicemen. On being satisfied, ° the other consideration has to be looked into and selection process could . be made and candidates are selected according to prescribed procedure, It being the primary duty ¢ of the Selection Board, it cannot abdicate its function by merely relying on certificate issued by the Sainik Board which Lis only a recommending authority certifying that the candidate as a dependent of the ex-servicemen. It may be accepted only-a prima facie evidence. The certificate does not ipso facto became conclusive nor would it entitle “the candidate to be. considered as a dependant of the ex-servicemen. It would be for the Boatd to examine and in case of any doubt, it should call upon the candidate to satisfy the Board that the candidate is dependant _ and fulfills the requirements prescribed i in the guidelines. That was not ~done in. these c cases.. a :
‘
“Under these’ circumstances, the appeals are “allowed. There shall be _a direction to'the first respondent to call upon the candidates to satisfy the ‘requirements referred to hereinbefore and then process their applications -according to law” and consider. their cases against the: unfilled posts _. reserved for the. ex-servicemen within a period of six weeks from the date . of the _Feceipt of this order. No costs. ea a , a. . a . oo re
RRO ve "Appeals allowed. — ow ~