Great-grandson of freedom fighter not entitled to quota: High court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a freedom fighter’s great-grandson cannot claim reservation on Punjab following a standing order. The ruling came as Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted allowing a police constable — who entered service against the freedom fighter quota without a valid eligibility certificate — to continue in the job would “legalise his illegal act” and encourage others to exploit the system.

In his detailed order, Justice Bansal made it clear that the law restricted the benefit up to the grandson, and a candidate beyond that lineage could not derive advantage, even if a scrutiny committee failed to detect the lapse at the time of appointment.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Bansal held that the candidate’s reliance on a certificate issued in his father’s favour could not cure the fundamental defect.

“As per the standing order, he was supposed to file freedom fighter certificate issued in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner. He produced certificate issued in favour of his father.”

Justice Bansal asserted added no fraud was established, but the candidate’s action still amounted to misrepresentation. “In the case in hand, it cannot be concluded that there was fraud on the part of petitioner, however, there was misrepresentation on his part,” the bench observed.

The bench was told that the petitioner secured appointment as constable pursuant to a 2016 advertisement that expressly carried a reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Ex-servicemen and wards of freedom fighters. He relied on a 2006 certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. His stand in the matter was that he acted bona fide and a designated committee had scrutinised his documents before his selection.

Justice Bansal observed the certificate required to be submitted had to be issued specifically in the petitioner’s favour.

“The certificate could not be issued in his favour because reservation was available up to grandson of a freedom fighter whereas petitioner is a great grandson of freedom fighter,” the court pointed out.

Referring to the screening committee’s failure to detect the defect, the bench remarked: “There was concededly lapse on the part of the screening committee. There may be connivance or negligence on the part of members of the committee. There is no mechanism to delve into mental state of the members of the screening committee, thus, it cannot be concluded that there was connivance or negligence on their part.”

Rejecting the plea that his nine-year service should protect him from removal, the court warned that accepting such an argument would set a damaging precedent.

“If the petitioner is permitted to continue only on the sole ground that he has completed nine years’ service, it would legalise his illegal act. It would prompt many other candidates to play such tactics and get job. It is a matter of chance that his illegality was unearthed,” it said.

Acknowledging the hardships, the dismissal might cause, the bench reiterated that empathy could not override the statutory mandate. “The court is not oblivious of the fact that discharge/dismissal of petitioner would cause hardship to the petitioner and his family, however, sympathy or compassion cannot substitute law,” Justice Bansal asserted, adding that past benefits availed or utilised by petitioner would not be withdrawn.