Case Note & Summary
The case concerned recruitment to posts reserved for ex-servicemen under the instructions of the Government of Haryana. The appellants, being ex-servicemen, challenged the selection process adopted by the Selection Board wherein ex-servicemen and dependent children of ex-servicemen were called together for consideration on merit, which the appellants contended impeded ex-servicemen. The dispute reached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions. The Government of Haryana had taken a policy decision on 1 July 1980 to recruit dependent sons or daughters of ex-servicemen who fulfilled the qualifications, age and other criteria prescribed for the post, but only against unfilled posts reserved for ex-servicemen. A clarification letter dated 21 November 1980 defined a dependent as an unemployed person who is a member of the joint family and contributes to the pool of family income by lending help, or a person who has already done graduation or is doing post-graduation and getting merit scholarship. The Selection Board, however, accepted certificates issued by the Sainik Board stating that the contesting respondents were dependants of ex-servicemen and considered them eligible without independent verification. The appellants contended that the contesting respondents did not fulfil the criteria and that the selection process was flawed. The Supreme Court identified three legal issues: whether the policy of joint consideration impeded ex-servicemen and violated the reservation object; whether the contesting respondents satisfied the dependent criteria; and whether the Selection Board could rely solely on Sainik Board certificates. On the first issue, the Court held that the object of reservation for ex-servicemen is to rehabilitate them after discharge from defence services. The Board should first consider the claims of ex-servicemen independently, select those found eligible, and only for balance unfilled posts consider dependent children. Calling them together was an impediment. On the second and third issues, the Court held that the Board, being the recruiting agency, has the primary duty to verify whether a candidate claiming to be a dependent son or daughter of an ex-servicemen fulfils the criteria. The Sainik Board certificate is only prima facie evidence; it does not ipso facto become conclusive. The Board cannot abdicate its function by relying solely on the certificate of a recommending authority. If there is any doubt, the Board should call upon the candidate to satisfy it about dependent status. The Court therefore allowed the appeals and directed the first respondent to call upon the candidates to satisfy the dependent criteria and then process their applications according to law against unfilled posts reserved for ex-servicemen within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation for Ex-Servicemen - Priority of Ex-Servicemen Over Dependent Children - Haryana Government Policy Instructions dated 1 July 1980 and letter dated 21 November 1980 - The object of reservation is to rehabilitate ex-servicemen after discharge from defence services; the Selection Board must first consider ex-servicemen independently and select eligible candidates before considering dependent sons or daughters for unfilled reserved posts - The court held that calling ex-servicemen and dependents together impedes ex-servicemen; hence the Board must first consider ex-servicemen and only then fill balance posts from dependents - Held that appeals allowed on this ground (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Dependent Children Eligibility - Definition of Dependent - Haryana Government letter No.12/37/79/GSII dated 21 November 1980 - A dependent is an unemployed person who is member of a joint family and contributes to family income by lending help, or a person doing post-graduation with merit scholarship - The court noted that the contesting respondents were alleged not to fulfill these criteria; the Selection Board relied on Sainik Board certificates - Held that Board must verify whether candidates meet these criteria before appointment (Paras 1-2). C) Administrative Law - Recruitment Authority's Duty to Verify - Selection Board Cannot Abdicate Function by Relying on Sainik Board Certificate - Haryana Government Instructions - The Sainik Board certificate is only prima facie evidence and not conclusive; the Selection Board as recruiting agency has primary duty to independently verify dependent status and cannot solely rely on recommending authority - Held that the Board's stand was not justified in law and it must examine candidates and call upon them to satisfy criteria if doubt (Paras 1-2). D) Judicial Review - Operative Directions - Appeals Allowed - First respondent directed to call upon candidates to satisfy dependent criteria and process applications for unfilled ex-servicemen posts within six weeks; no costs - Held that appeals were allowed and relief granted accordingly (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Selection Board's policy of calling ex-servicemen and dependent children together impedes ex-servicemen and violates reservation policy; whether contesting respondents satisfied the criteria for dependants of ex-servicemen; whether the Selection Board could rely solely on Sainik Board certificates without independent verification
Final Decision
The appeals were allowed. The first respondent was directed to call upon the candidates to satisfy the dependent criteria and then process their applications according to law against unfilled posts reserved for ex-servicemen within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No costs.
Law Points
- Reservation for ex-servicemen aims to rehabilitate them after discharge
- ex-servicemen must be considered first for reserved posts
- dependent children can only be considered for unfilled posts after ex-servicemen are exhausted
- dependent child means unemployed member of joint family contributing to family income or pursuing post-graduation with merit scholarship
- Sainik Board certificate is only prima facie evidence
- not conclusive
- Selection Board has primary duty to independently verify dependent status and cannot abdicate by relying solely on recommending authority
