Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054716
CWP-25893-2021 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:054716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113+251 CWP-25893-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
SUKHDEEP SINGH ....PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTs
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate and
Mr. Sarwinder Goyal,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 26.08.2021
(Annexure P-8) whereby Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda has rejected
his claim for issuance of certificate for claiming reservation under the category
of 'Wards of Police Personnel'.
2. The petitioner, pursuant to advertisement No. 2/2021 dated
16.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) applied for the post of Constable. By notification
dated 11.06.1996 (Annexure R-1), the respondents have reserved 2% posts for
wards of deserving policemen.
3. As per said notification, a policeman who has taken part in at least 3
encounters with terrorists, would be considered as deserving policeman and his
wards would be eligible for reservation. The relevant extracts of the notification
are reproduced as below:-
"2. The Governor of Punjab is pleased to accord sanction to
reserve 2% posts for the wards of deserving policemen for
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054716
CWP-25893-2021 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:054716
recruitment as Constables, Asstt. Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors out
of direct recruitment quota only in respect of active field posts,
which were previously meant for handicapped persons:-
The term "deserving" will cover wards of the following police
personnel:-
1) Who have suffered casualties of one or more of the
following relatives:-
a) Father
b) Mother
c) Sister/Brother
d) Son/daughter
e) Any other dependent family member.
OR
(ii) Who has suffered permanent disability on account of
action against terrorists or attack by terrorists.
OR
iii) Who has been awarded president's Police Medal For
Gallantary or police Medal for Gallantary for showing
bravery in actions against terrorists.
OR
(iv) Who has taken part in atleast 3 encounters with
terrorists.
OR
v) Who otherwise in the opinion of the Director General
of Police has been in the forefront of the fight against
terrorism.
The "Wards" proposed to be covered would be dependent son,
dependent daughter, dependent brother, dependent sister or
any other dependent family member."
4. The father of the petitioner was a policeman who participated in
operations against terrorists. There is no dispute with respect to his participation
in two encounters with terrorist. The petitioner claims that his father had
participated in three encounters with terrorists whereas respondents are claiming
that he had participated in two encounters and his role in third encounter cannot
be considered as participation.
5. The petitioner, for the purpose of claiming reservation under the
category of 'Wards of Police Personnel', applied for issuance of certificate. The
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054716
CWP-25893-2021 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:054716
respondent by impugned order has rejected his claim on the ground that his
father did not participate in third encounter.
6. Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate submits that respondents have
failed to consider the intent and purpose of aforesaid notification. The
requirement is not to actually participate in the encounter. Everyone, whose
name is recorded in FIR which is outcome of an encounter, falls within
definition of deserving police personnel. The father of the petitioner did not face
terrorist in third encounter, however, his name was recorded in FIR because he
was connected with official work of the said FIR. Thus, it cannot be held that
father of petitioner did not participate in three encounters with terrorists.
7. Per contra, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that in every
encounter, a number of persons directly or indirectly participate. A person, who
has not actually participated in the encounter, cannot be considered as deserving
police personnel. The petitioner in the case of third FIR was concerned with
delivery of documents. Thus, it cannot be said that he had participated in the
third encounter with terrorists.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
9. The respondent, by notification dated 11.06.1996 framed a policy
whereby 2% posts were reserved for the wards of police personnel who
participated in three encounters with terrorists. The State by said notification
expressed its intention to protect wards of those police personnels who had
suffered at the hands of terrorists. The respondent has contemplated different
categories of officials who had faced wrath of terrorist. The claim of the
petitioner is confined to Clause-IV of Paragraph 2 of the notification. For the
sake of convenience and at the cost of repetition, the said Clause is reproduced
as below:-
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054716
CWP-25893-2021 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:054716
"(iv) Who has taken part in atleast 3 encounters with terrorists."
10. The respondents to implement aforesaid notification has issued
circular dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P-9) whereby procedure for issuance of
certificate has been prescribed. In paragraph 3 of the said circular, it has been
provided that in case all the 3 FIRs relating to encounters are registered in the
same district, the concerned District Senior Superintendent of
Police/Commissioner of Police would be required to certify that the concerned
police officer has actually taken part in those encounters. The relevant extracts
of the circular dated 12.09.2016 are reproduced as below:-
"3. In order to streamline the cases for grant of 2% reservation
in Direct Recruitment to the wards of Police Personnel, the
following guidelines are required to be followed:-
xxx xxx xxx
(iv) in cases covered under (iv) above, the following
procedure will be followed:
a) In case all the 03 FIRs relating to the encounters
with terrorists had been registered in the same district,
the concerned District SSP/CP would be required to
certify that the concerned Police Officer had actually
taken part in those encounters and report the same to
the Range DIG and the DIG Range concerned would
be the competent authority to issue the certificate to the
concerned Police Officer claiming 2% reservation in
quota for 'Wards of Police Personnel' the DIG Range
will exercise due diligence and caution before issuing
such certificate."
xxx xxx xxx
11. From the conjoint reading of notification dated 11.06.1996 and
circular dated 12.09.2016, it is evident that in case of registration of all the 3
FIRs relating to encounters in the same district, it is Senior Superintendent of
Police/ Commissioner who has to certify that official concerned has actually
taken part in three encounters. In the case in hand, the Senior Superintendent of
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054716
CWP-25893-2021 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:054716
Police has reported that father of petitioner actually participated in two
encounters with terrorists and in third case, he did not participate in the
encounter. His role was confined to delivery of documents.
12. From the perusal of FIR No. 109 dated 11.06.1993, it comes out
that police party under the leadership of jurisdictional SSP initiated an operation
against terrorists. The father of the petitioner was not present at the time of
operation against terrorists. His name is mentioned in FIR at the end and it is
simply noted that special report is being sent through constable Gurtej Singh
1941. The name of the petitioner's father is indubitably recorded in the FIR,
however, it is very much clear that he was not part of the operation initiated
against terrorists. His role was confined to delivery of documents which was
post registration of FIR. If the contention of petitioner is accepted, every
policemen who was even remotely concerned with operation against terrorists
would be eligible to the benefit which has been extended to those brave officials
who had fought against terrorists. It would give undue benefit to those people
who had not actually participated in operations against terrorists. It would rather
amount to discrimination with those officials who had actually participated and
faced the consequences of terrorist attack.
13. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court does not
find substance in the contention of the petitioner. The petition being bereft of
merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
14. Before parting with judgment, it would be relevant to notice that
petitioner during the course of argument has pointed out that respondents while
filling up vacancies in police department are not complying with mandate of
Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The
respondents are duty bound to comply with every statutory provision enacted by
competent legislature.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054716
CWP-25893-2021 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:054716
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
23.04.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
