DILWAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC. ETC. . MARCH 25, 1996 i (K. .RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAI:I\, JJ.] Service Laiy : Appointment und~r State Government pfHarya11a-Reservatio11 for ex:servicemen-Govemment instructions to· consider depe11de11t childrell of c ex-servicemen .in absence of availabllity of ex-s~rvicerneir–selection Board t ' .
'·~· . ' ' " calling ex-servicemen and dependent childre11 of ex-servicemen.together for consideration .according' to nterit~or id~11tificatio11 whether candidates. are dependents of ex-se1viceme11, Selection Board relying on the cenificates issued by Sainik Board-Held, Selection Board should first .consider independelll/y the eligibiliiy 4 ex-;e;vic~:nen and for .the balance unfilled post select.ion 😀 shozild be made from amongst dependent c!1ildre11 ofex-servicemen-Se/ec- tion Board being the recmiti11g age11cy has a duty to verify whether.a candidate is a dependent son/daughter of a11 ex-servicema11 and it ca11not abdicate its function .merely relying 011 the unijicate isstied by th.e Sainik Board. • 'E
, CI\JIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.·6887 of 1996 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dat.ed. 16,12.93 of the Punjab .& Haryana High Court in C.W.P .. No. 741Z of 1993. Mahabir Singh for the Appellants:
Pradeep Gupta, K.K..Mohan and Ms. Naresh Baksh.i for the Respon- dents. · , .The following Order of the Court was .delivered : · Tiiough the respondent~ were .sel'Ved in .SI.:P (C) No. 2i297-991\J4, respo~d.ents .1 and·4 appea~ thro.u~ counsel in r.espect .of.respondents 2 and 3, ~eithe~ A.D. Card n9r ~nse.rved origin,µ notice .hav.e been .receiv.ed back Under thc;se drcuins~ances, they must, ~e. deeme~ to have been served.
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS Leave granted. It is contended by Shri Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that the Selection Board h.as adopted a policy of calling the ex-servicemen and the dependent children of the ex-servicemen together B 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 C 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 D the balance unfilled posts, the selection be done from among the depend- ent 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-ser- E vicemen ? 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 depend- ent children. When clarification was sought for, various criteria have been suggested to identify the defendants. The Government have examined the matter and foutid 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 G help or a person who has already done his graduation or is doing post- graduation 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 H to be considered.
i DILWAN SINGHv. STATE . t• Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent- Selec~ ·A . tion Board contending that the Sainik Board had issued a certific~te stating ihat 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"lndepen'dent verification and, therefore, they have accepted them as dependents. We are of the view that the Board is not justified in la,.; to t~ke s~ch a stand: Th~ Boar'd lieing the recruiiing B agency, it is. its duty to verify and find out whether a candidate who. has laid his claim as a dependant son' or· daoght~r of the d~ceased ex-ser- vicemen, fulfilled the criteria referred to earlier for recruitment to the vacancies reserved for unfilled posts of -~x~servicemen. On being satisfied, · the other consideration has to be look_ed into and selection process could . C be made and candidates are selected acc~rding to pr,es~ribed procedure, It b~ing the primary duty of the Selection Board, it· cannot ab.dicate its function by merely relying ~I! c~~tificate issued by the Sainik Board which is only a recommending authority certifying that the candidate as a depend- ent of the ex-servicemen. It may be accepted only a prima facie evidepce. D The certifi~te does not ipso facto became conclusive n'or would it entitle the candidate to be considered as a dependant of the ex-servicemen. ,It would be for the Board 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 in the guidelines. That was not · done in these cases.
Under thesecircumstances,. the ~pp_eals are 'allowed. There shall be . a direction tothe first respondent to call upon the candidates Jo satisfy the :requirement~ referred to her~inbefore ~nd then process their. applications , ~ccordi_ng to . law artd consideL their cases .against the _unfilled posts reserved. for the ex:seivicemen within a period of six weeks from the date ~f the_rece1pt oUhis order. No costs.
. -. ·R:.r. -~J f, .f • Appeals allowed. ',, . :! • ' , • I , ,.r ;., .