Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Another absurdity, another decision by the Hon’ble High Court ‘righting the wrong’

As we all know, there is reservation for ‘defence category’ in most of the professional colleges and institutions. In some States, there is a system of an order of preference within the defence category wherein kin of personnel killed in action, gallantry awardees, disabled personnel etc are granted a preference over serving and retired personnel and their kin.

The Punjab Govt in 2008 took out a notification providing therein that the wards of defence personnel would be granted preference over defence personnel themselves. In other words, to take an example, in case an invalided member of the military wants to pursue a professional course in Punjab, his/ her ward would be granted preference over him/her. The State Govt conveniently took no note of the fact that it is because of the military personnel that his / her ward gets the status of being a ‘ward or dependant of a military personnel’. Even to a layman, it would be absurd to say that wards should steal a march over military personnel themselves if it comes to that.

The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court through this judgement has set things right and declared this action to be illegal and arbitrary. Following are some excerpts from the Judgement :

"It is contended on behalf of the respondents that in the preferential order notified for reservation for defence category, the wards of defence personnel are to get preference as against the defence personnel himself. In my opinion such an approach is totally irrational and illogical. Ward of a defence personnel becomes entitled to benefit because of his/her parents being a lineal descendant then how can ward steal a march over the defence personnel himself. It should be other way around if defence personnel himself is competing as against a ward of any defence personnel, he/she has to be given preference over the ward."

5 comments:

pradosh said...

I would totally disagree with the logic of the high court. why should a fit and fine short service officer retired from service be given preference over the wards of defence personal who died in action and family is suffering of financial problems?

priorty of reservation should be as follows :-
(a)wards of defence personal Killed in action whose family income from all sources is les than 4.5 lakhs
(b)widows of defence personal KIA with income less than 4.5 lakhs
(c)Invalided/disabled defence personal on medical grounds whilst in service
(d)Wards of defence personal KIA
(d)retired defence personal
(e) wards of serving/retired defence personal

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@Pradosh

You have not understood the import of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court this means.

The Court has NOT granted preference to 'a fit and fine short service officer' over wards of personnel who died in action. However if there is case where there is a disabled officer vs a ward of a disabled officer, then the officer himself/herself shall be granted priority. Similarly, if there is an officer in the last priority section of the defence category and in his competition is a ward of an officer, then also the officer shall be granted priority over the ward. The principle would internally vis-a-vis the sub categories of the defence category and would not lead to officers themselves stealing a march over wards of disabled personnel or those killed in action.

pradosh said...

@ Navdeep sir

ok.. Then i got the interpretation wrong. if the concept "would not lead to officers themselves stealing a march over wards of disabled personnel or those killed in action" as you mentioned then the decision of Hon'ble high court is a welcome step. Thanks for enlightening...

Anonymous said...

HELLO NAVDEEP
I ABSOLUTELY ENDORSE THE VIEWS OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT, AND WOULD FURTHER LIKE TO REQUEST THE PUNJAB GOVT TO SPECIFY WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY 'DEPENDENT' WARDS.

biren singham said...

Gd evening am I naik birendra from indian army. Am I injured since 2010 apr at siachen glacier .. op magdoot... my left forarm oprate army hospital delhi rr... on July 2010. But can't declared my case. According army order 1 2003 the cold Injuries during op megdoot declared. A battles casualty but till date can't confirm my case.. pl update me...