Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaswant Singh, Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.
Balwan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 9508 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-05-2021
Reservation - Ex-Servicemen - Article 14, Article 16 - 16(1), 16(4) - 1993(1) SCT 448, 1993 AIR SC 477, 1995(4) SCT 403, 1995(5) SCC173, 2007)8 SCC 785, 2011(20) SCT 243, 2011(1) SCT 803 - The court discussed the nature of reservation for Ex-Servicemen, its source in the Constitution, and the implementation thereof. It concluded that reservation for Ex-Servicemen is a special reservation under Article 16(1) and is a horizontal reservation, constituting a reservation within reservation. The court also highlighted the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations and the procedure for their implementation. It rejected the argument that the conversion of reservation for Ex-Servicemen from vertical to horizontal constituted double reservation, emphasizing that the intent of horizontal reservation is to implement both vertical and horizontal reservation within the 50% cap of maximum reservation mandated by the Supreme Court. The court also addressed the sub-division of horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen into other categories, ruling that there was nothing arbitrary in the impugned Instructions providing for sub-division of reservation for Ex-Servicemen in Group A & B posts between the reserved categories. It further upheld the provision allowing the filling of vacancies reserved for Ex-Servicemen from candidates of the concerned sub-category of vertical reservation if no suitable Ex-Serviceman candidate is found. The court also emphasized that reservation inherently permits differential treatment of unequals and is a mechanism provided under the Constitution to ensure equality, not to claim privileges over or at par with other oppressed classes.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the Instructions issued by the Chief Secretary, Haryana, converting the reservation for Ex-Servicemen from vertical to horizontal in Group A & B posts. The petitioners, Ex-Servicemen belonging to the General Category, argued that the conversion constituted double reservation, prejudicing Ex-Servicemen in the General Category. The petition also raised concerns about the sub-division of horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen into other categories and the provision allowing the filling of vacancies reserved for Ex-Servicemen from candidates of the concerned sub-category of vertical reservation if no suitable Ex-Serviceman candidate is found.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the argument that the conversion of reservation for Ex-Servicemen from vertical to horizontal constituted double reservation, emphasizing that the intent of horizontal reservation is to implement both vertical and horizontal reservation within the 50% cap of maximum reservation mandated by the Supreme Court. It upheld the provision allowing the filling of vacancies reserved for Ex-Servicemen from candidates of the concerned sub-category of vertical reservation if no suitable Ex-Serviceman candidate is found. The court also emphasized that reservation inherently permits differential treatment of unequals and is a mechanism provided under the Constitution to ensure equality, not to claim privileges over or at par with other oppressed classes.
Issues: The issues raised in the writ petition included the nature of reservation for Ex-Servicemen, the conversion of reservation from vertical to horizontal, the sub-division of horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen into other categories, and the provision allowing the filling of vacancies reserved for Ex-Servicemen from candidates of the concerned sub-category of vertical reservation if no suitable Ex-Serviceman candidate is found.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reservation for Ex-Servicemen is a special reservation under Article 16(1) and is a horizontal reservation, constituting a reservation within reservation. It rejected the argument that the conversion of reservation for Ex-Servicemen from vertical to horizontal constituted double reservation, emphasizing that the intent of horizontal reservation is to implement both vertical and horizontal reservation within the 50% cap of maximum reservation mandated by the Supreme Court. The court also upheld the provision allowing the filling of vacancies reserved for Ex-Servicemen from candidates of the concerned sub-category of vertical reservation if no suitable Ex-Serviceman candidate is found. The court also emphasized that reservation inherently permits differential treatment of unequals and is a mechanism provided under the Constitution to ensure equality, not to claim privileges over or at par with other oppressed classes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the impugned Instructions providing horizontal reservation to Ex-Servicemen were in consonance with the provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
ORDER
Jaswant Singh, J. - The instant Writ Petition filed by two petitioners is directed against the Instructions dated 23.01.2018 (P-12) as well as 30.04.2018 (P-13) issued by the Chief Secretary, Haryana. The sole ground of challenge is that vide the impugned Instructions, the reservation for Ex-servicemen in Group A & B posts in State of Haryana has been converted from vertical to horizontal one by sub-division of that specific category without appreciating the fact that a person belonging to a specific category has been granted the benefit of reservation within reservation which is violative of Art 14 & 16 of the Constitution. A Writ of mandamus has also been sought for directing the Respondent No. 2, Haryana Public Service Commission to re-advertise the posts qua Ex-Servicemen category by applying 5% prescribed quota reserved for Ex-Servicemen as vertical reservation in direct recruitment to Class-I & II posts.
2. The petitioners herein are the Ex-Servicemen belonging to General Category. They are the applicants for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) advertised by Respondent No. 2 Haryana Public Service Commission vide advertisement No. 01/2021 dated 13.01.2021 (P-14). Their grouse in the present petition is that by converting the reservation for Ex-Servicemen from vertical to horizontal and by further sub-dividing the same amongst various categories i.e. unreserved, Scheduled Castes and Backward Class (A&B), the State Government has granted benefit of reservation within reservation i.e. the double reservation to Ex-Servicemen candidates belonging to reserved category falling under vertical reservation whereas, on the contrary, the benefit earlier available to Ex-Servicemen candidates belonging to unreserved category candidates like the petitioners has been considerably curtailed.
3. Mr. Vivek Khatri, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the State of Haryana, initially, the reservation for Ex-Servicemen was a vertical reservation for all Classes of posts. In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union Of India, 1993(1) SCT 448: 1993 AIR SC 477, the State Government reviewed its existing policy of reservation of Class-Ill & IV posts for Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, Ex-Servicemen and the Physically Handicapped in the Government jobs and issued revised Instructions dated 20.07.1995 (P-7). Vide the said Instructions, the reservation for Ex-Servicemen and Physically disabled in Government jobs in Class III & IV was made horizontal reservation and the same was further sub-divided into Unreserved category and Block 'A' and "B' of Backward Classes. However, no such conversion or change was carried out in reservation for Ex-Servicemen in Class I & II posts and the same continued to be vertical reservation till the issuance of the impugned Instructions.
4. Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Ld. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has appeared for the respondents on having received an advance copy of the petition. She has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, 1995(4) SCT 403:1995(5) SCC173; Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007)8 SCC 785; Saurav Yadav and Ors. Vs. State o/Uttar Pradesh & Ors., MA No. 2641 of 2019 in SLP (Civil) No. 23223 of 2018 dated 18.12.2020 and of this Court in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2011(20) SCT 243 and Ashwani Kumar Kaushik & Anr. Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission, 2011(1) SCT 803, to assert that the under the Constitutional scheme of reservation, the reservation for Ex-Servicemen is a special reservation provided under Article 16(1) which is horizontal in nature. She further submitted that it is a well recognized principle that a horizontal reservation can be overall reservation i.e. without any sub-division between reserved categories under open competition category and vertical reservation; or compartmentalized reservation which is pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
