Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by an ex-serviceman under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of directions to Respondents for his appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (J.E.) (Electrical), A Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., held that it was the duty of every employer to not create any unnecessary hindrances to the ex-servicemen’s rehabilitation by denying them employment opportunities under the ex-servicemen quota. Further, the Court stated that if the essential qualifications laid down for recruitment to civil employment were such that they nullify the benefit of reservation provided to ex-servicemen, then the whole exercise would go in vain.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner contended that he appeared for an exam for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer under Ex-servicemen category. He obtained 51.675 marks against cut off marks of 45.825 for the said category and was declared successful via email. The petitioner wrote an email to the Indian Navy requesting for issuance of necessary certificate of equivalence of the diploma completed by him during service. Subsequently, the Naval Pension Office informed the respondent that individuals holding Naval Trades of CHEL (R)/CHEL(P) may be considered for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical).
The petitioner further contended that two similarly situated persons had already been appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) with a sister enterprise of the Respondent-Nigam regarding the same advertisement. However, the respondent had issued a letter to the Indian Navy inquiring if the certificate issued to the petitioner was equivalent to the requisite qualifications prescribed by respondent for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical).
The respondent contended that the equivalence granted by the Indian Navy cannot be considered satisfactory in terms of the essential qualifications laid down in the advertisement for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical).
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that technical skills gained during service with the armed forces involved the most rigorous forms of training. Further, the precision demanded by naval operations ensured that the candidates trained in the same could master the advanced technologies and perform their duties even in high pressure situations.
The Court emphasized that normally, the Courts ought not to interfere with the selection mechanisms for any employment, however, the same was warranted in the present case as it involved delay in recruitment of a well-trained ex-serviceman. The Court opined that the services rendered by ex-servicemen should be honored in a practical manner by providing them opportunities for civil employment.
Further, the Court observed that ex-servicemen retired from the armed forces in large numbers every year, at a comparatively younger age to their civil counterparts but the opportunities of their civil employment were not always proportional to the rate at which they were discharged. Thus, the Court stated that it was the duty of every employer to not create any unnecessary hindrances to their rehabilitation by denying them employment opportunities under the ex-servicemen quota.
The Court held that if the essential qualifications laid down for recruitment to civil employment were such that they nullify the benefit of reservation provided to ex-servicemen, the whole exercise would go in vain. The rules should be adequately relaxed to deliver the intended benefits of the reservations made in favor of the ex-serviceman.
The Court adjourned the case to 15-10-2925 and directed the Managing Director of the respondent to file an affidavit providing the answers to the following:
-
When were the essential conditions for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) implemented?
-
How many ex-servicemen had been selected to such post since implementation of the said essential qualification?
[Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7995, decided on 15-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sajjan Singh, Advocate
For the respondents: Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana, Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate and Narender Kumar Vashist, Senior Panel Counsel
Buy Constitution of India HERE
