Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Singhj vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 1 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097851
CWP No.9745 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9745 of 2016
Date of Decision:01.08.2024
Sukhjinder Singh
....Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab
Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate with
Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate
for respondent No. 4
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider him
for the post of Constable under 2% quota meant for the wards of Policemen.
2. The respondent-State of Punjab, vide Memo No. 1(211)94-
2H(I)/10176 dated 11.06.1996 (Annexure P-1) issued a policy for direct
recruitment in the rank of Constables, Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors for
wards of deserving Policemen. The said Memo was issued in view of
reservation of 2% posts for the wards of deserving Policemen. The
respondent vide advertisement dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) invited
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097851
applications for the post of Constables. In the advertisement, 2% posts were
reserved for the wards of deserving Policemen. The petitioner claims that he
is a ward of a policeman who was posted in Assam and participated in anti-
terrorist operations. The respondent rejected his claim. He filed various
representations seeking benefit of 2% quota, but to no avail.
3. Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate submits that this Court in CWP
No. 26802 of 2018 titled as "Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others" vide judgment dated 25.03.2021 has upheld 2% quota for wards of
Police personnel. Intra-court appeal filed against said judgment stands
dismissed vide judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by Division Bench of this
Court in LPA No. 844 of 2021. The father of the petitioner was posted in
Assam and he actually participated in various anti-terrorist operations, thus,
petitioner is entitled to benefit of 2% quota meant for wards of Police
personnel.
4. Per contra, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that
expression "deserving" has been defined in the Memo dated 11.06.1996.
Wards of only 'deserving' Policemen can claim benefit of 2% quota. The
case of petitioner does not fall in any of the categories jotted down in the
said Memo. There is no evidence disclosing that father of the petitioner had
actively participated in anti-terrorist operations, thus, he is not entitled to 2%
quota meant for wards of deserving Policemen.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with
their able assistance.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097851
6. The petitioner is claiming benefit of Memo dated 11.06.1996.
In the said Memo, expression "deserving" Police personnel has been
defined. The relevant extracts of the said Memo are reproduced as below:-
"The term "deserving" will cover wards of the following
police personnel:-
i. Who have suffered casualties of one or more the
following relatives:
1. Father
2. Mother
3. Sister/Brother
4. Son/Daughter
5. Any other dependent family members
OR
ii. Who has suffered permanent disability on the action
against terrorist or attack by terrorist.
OR
iii Who has been awarded President's Police Gallantry or
Police Medal for Gallantry bravery in actions against the
terrorists.
OR
iv. Who has taken part in atleast 3 encounters with terrorist.
OR
v. Who otherwise in the opinion of the Director General of
Police has been in forefront of the fight against terrorism.
The "wards" proposed to covered widow, son,
dependent daughter, dependent brother sister or
any other dependent family member."
7. From the perusal of extracts of Memo, it is evident that a
Policeman falls within definition of 'deserving' if he himself or any member
of his family has suffered causalities; who has suffered permanent disability
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097851
on account of action against terrorist or attack by terrorist or he has been
awarded President's Police Gallantry or Police Medal for Gallantry bravery
in actions against the terrorists or has taken part in atleast three encounters
with terrorists. The case of petitioner does not fall in categories (i), (ii) and
(iv). He is claiming that his father was awarded "Disc of Honour" by
Director General of Police, Punjab, thus, his case falls in Clause (iii) of the
aforesaid Memo. In the alternative, he pleads that his case falls under
Clause (v) which provides that Director General of Police may declare any
Police personnel as deserving Policeman if he finds that said Police
personnel was in forefront of the fight against terrorism. The said Police
personnel might not have suffered injury.
8. From the perusal of "Disc of Honour" (Annexure P-7) awarded
to father of the petitioner by Director General of Police, Punjab, it is difficult
to hold that said "Disc of Honour" was awarded for Gallantry bravery in
actions against the terrorists. The said certificate records that 'Disc of
Honour" is awarded because of his performance of duty with devotion and
dedication during Operational Deployment outside the State. The said
certificate simply confirms that petitioner's father while working outside the
State, performed his duties with devotion and dedication. It does not
disclose that he was awarded police medal for Gallantry bravery in actions
against the terrorists.
9. The petitioner is further claiming that Director General of
Police, Punjab should declare that his father was in forefront of the fight
against terrorism. The State in its reply has categorically pleaded that there
is no evidence that petitioner's father was in forefront of the fight against
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097851
terrorism. He was indubitably posted in Assam but there is no evidence in
the form of FIR(s) or certificates issued by authorities of Assam disclosing
that he was in forefront of the fight against terrorism.
10. Clause (v) of the Memo dated 11.06.1996 gives discretion to
Director General of Police. The Director General of Police, Punjab on the
basis of record has to form an opinion whether the Police personnel was in
forefront of the fight against terrorism. Firstly, this Court cannot substitute
opinion of Director General of Police; secondly, there is no convincing
evidence on record to form an opinion that petitioner's father was in
forefront of the fight against terrorism.
11. The petitioner is claiming post which was advertised in 2011. At
this belated stage, besides aforesaid findings, it would not be just and fair to
set-aside posting of one person and appoint another.
12. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly hereby dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
01.08.2024
paramjit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes
5 of 5
