Padam Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2022 rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 318 of 2022, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant seeking direction to the selecting body to consider him for appointment against a vacancy reserved for ‘Ex-Serviceman’, was dismissed.

Appellant responded to an advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Subordinate Selection Commission, on 21.09.2016. The last date for submission of online application was 31.10.2016; appellant submitted application for the post of Junior Engineer (E & M) within time, however, he did not indicate his category as Ex-Serviceman. Selection process concluded in the month of January, 2022.

Since benefit of horizontal reservation as ex-serviceman was not given to the appellant, therefore, he filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 318 of 2022, seeking following reliefs:-

“a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the Ex-Servicemen horizontal reservation and to select him for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical and mechanical)

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to recast the select list to include the name of the petitioner in the Ex-Servicemen category and to call him for document verification.”

The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by holding that petitioner had not claimed benefit available to Ex-Serviceman in his application, therefore he cannot be given benefit of horizontal reservation available to Ex-Serviceman. Learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for not extending benefit of reservation to petitioner, with which we concur.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment rendered by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Haryana Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary v. Sarla and others. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts as there, it was pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner is a poor widow lady without knowledge of computer who had submitted online application for the post of Supervisor in Women and Child Development Department with the help of an operator in a private computer centre in the concerned village. It was further pleaded that immediately after realising about the mistake in the application form, petitioner made representation to the selecting body within two months from the last date of submission of application. In the present case, there is no such pleading that petitioner does not have working knowledge of computer, moreover petitioner woke up after nearly six years, that too when selection process was concluded and third party rights were created.

There is yet another aspect of the matter, due to which relief claimed by petitioner cannot be granted. Appellant was in service on the date when he submitted online application for the post in question and he retired from Indian Army thereafter, on 31.01.2017.

The expression ‘Ex-Serviceman’ has been defined in Section 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 which is extracted below:-

“2. Definitions.-In this Act-

…………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………..

(c) "ex-serviceman" means a person who has served in any rank, as a combatant or non-combatant, in the Indian Army, Navy or Air Force, and-

(i) has retired from such service after earning his pension, or

(ii) has been released from such service on medical grounds, in accordance  with the requirements of such service, or   because of circumstances beyond his control and has been granted   medical or disability pension, or

(iii) has been released, otherwise than on his own request, as a consequence of reduction in the establishment of such service, or

(iv) has been released from such service after a fixed specific period, but has not been released on his own request or has not been dismissed or, discharged on account of misconduct or inefficiency and has been granted gratuity;”

and includes the following categories of territorial Army personnel who

(i) get pension for continuous embodied service,

(ii) have become medically unfit owing to military service, and

(iii) are winners of gallantry award

From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that appellant does not fall within the definition of ‘Ex-Serviceman’ as he was in active Army service on the last date of submission of online application and retired several months thereafter.

In such view of the matter, appellant rightly did not claim benefit of ‘Ex-Serviceman’ in his online application, as he did not belong to that category at the relevant point of time.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon yet another judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Usha Dhillon v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 23185 of 2014) in support of his contention that when right of no other candidate is affected, then application of a candidate may be permitted to be corrected.

I have gone through the judgment rendered in the case of Usha Dhillon (supra) relied upon by appellant’s counsel. In that case, petitioner approached the selecting body for correction in the category under which reservation was sought, on the very day of submission of online application and he also submitted corrected hard-copy of the application to the selecting body, the same day. Applicant also made representation to the selecting body with a request to consider her case under Ex-Serviceman category within two days of submitting online application, but, her request for change in the category was rejected.

Since application of writ-petitioner in the aforesaid case was rejected at the very threshold stage before commencement of selection, therefore, Punjab and Haryana High Court held that as right of no other candidate would be affected, if petitioner is permitted to correct her application, consequently, direction was issued to the authorities to consider her case under Ex-Serviceman category.

In the present case, petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2022 only after declaration of result. There are other candidates who have been recommended against vacancies reserved for Ex-Serviceman. Permitting petitioner to correct his online application at this belated stage will not only affect the right of those candidates, who have been recommended for appointment against vacancies reserved for Ex-Serviceman, but it will also disrupt the entire selection process.

In view of the stipulation made in the advertisement, it was incumbent upon all candidates to fill particulars in the online application carefully after reading the instructions. Holding selection for appointment to public services is a mammoth exercise requiring huge resources and considerable time is also spent in completing selection process. If candidates are permitted to correct the particulars given in their application merely on their asking, then it will be difficult for the selecting body to conclude selection process within given time, which will be against public interest.

Even otherwise also, appellant does not fall within the category of Ex-Serviceman, as he was in actual army service on the date of submission of application, therefore, he is not entitled to reservation meant for Ex-Serviceman. It is settled position in law that eligibility of a candidate for participating in a selection is to be seen with reference to the last date of submission of the application and on the said date, appellant had not acquired status of Ex-Serviceman. Thus viewed, petitioner was not eligible to apply as Ex-Serviceman for the post in question.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.