Ineligible for Freedom Fighter Quota, Constable Faces Termination After 9 Years; High Court Upholds Notice

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition by a police constable, Chandandeep Singh, challenging a show cause notice for his termination, ruling that securing employment through a reservation benefit for which he was not eligible cannot be regularized, even after nine years of service.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal, presiding over the case, held that while there may have been no fraud on the petitioner's part, allowing him to continue in service would amount to legalizing an illegal act. The court emphasized that "sympathy or compassion cannot substitute law."

Background of the Case

Chandandeep Singh was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Police in November 2016 under the reserved category for wards of Freedom Fighters. The basis for his claim was his great-grandfather, Late Shingara Singh, who was a recognized freedom fighter.

Years later, an inquiry revealed that the government's reservation policy, as detailed in Standing Order No. 1 of 2016, extended the benefit only up to the grandchildren (son, daughter, grandson, and granddaughter) of a freedom fighter. As a great-grandson, the petitioner was ineligible for the quota.

Following this discovery, the Director General of Police (DGP), Punjab, directed that a show cause notice for termination be issued. The petitioner challenged the subsequent notice issued by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, leading to the present case before the High Court.

Arguments in Court

• Petitioner's Stance: Counsel for Chandandeep Singh argued that he had acted in good faith by submitting the certificate that was available to him—one issued to his father, Lakhwinder Singh, identifying him as the grandson of a freedom fighter. It was contended that the document was not forged and was duly scrutinized and accepted by the Selection Committee at the time of recruitment. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the committee itself admitted to being unaware of the specific instructions limiting the benefit to grandchildren. Given his unblemished service record of nine years, he argued for his retention, citing precedents like * Dr. M.S. Mudhol vs. Shri S.D. Halegkar *.

• State's Contention: The State counsel countered that the recruitment advertisement and the governing Standing Order clearly defined eligibility. The policy explicitly limited the reservation to grandchildren. It was argued that while the petitioner may not be guilty of fraud, he was undeniably not entitled to the reservation benefit he availed. The State maintained that an irregularity, whether committed by the candidate or the authorities, cannot be regularized simply due to the passage of time, as it would set a wrong precedent.

Court's Reasoning and Precedents

Justice Bansal, after examining the records, noted a critical distinction: the petitioner did not submit a certificate issued in his own name, but one issued to his father.

> The court observed, "...he produced Certificate issued in favour of his father whereas he was required to produce Certificate issued in his favour... The Certificate could not be issued in his favour because reservation was available upto grandson of a freedom fighter whereas petitioner is a great grandson of freedom fighter. There was concededly lapse on the part of Screening Committee."

The court distinguished the petitioner's case from judgments like Dr. M.S. Mudhol , where the fault lay entirely with the appointing authority. Here, the court found "misrepresentation" on the petitioner's part for using a certificate not issued to him to claim a benefit he was not entitled to.

The judgment also referenced recent Supreme Court rulings, such as * Bhubeneswar Development Authority vs. Madhumita Das *, which held that a candidate who obtains employment against a reserved post to which they are not entitled cannot be permitted to continue, as it displaces a genuine candidate.

Final Verdict

In dismissing the petition, the High Court concluded that legalizing the petitioner's appointment would encourage others to use similar tactics.

> "If the petitioner is permitted to continue only on the sole ground that he has completed nine years service, it would legalize his illegal act... It is a matter of chance that his illegality was unearthed," the court stated.

While acknowledging the hardship the decision would cause, the court upheld the show cause notice. As a measure of relief, it directed that no past benefits or salary availed by the petitioner during his service shall be withdrawn.