Great Grand Son Not Eligible For Freedom Fighter Quota: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea Of Constable Wrongly Appointed For 9 Yrs

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition of a Constable who, after serving for nine years, was found to have been wrongly appointed under the Freedom Fighter quota, holding that the benefit of freedom fighter quota cannot be availed by the Great Grand son of the freedom fighter.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that, "there may be connivance or negligence on the part of members of the Committee. There is no mechanism to delve into mental state of the members of the Screening Committee, thus, it cannot be concluded that there was connivance or negligence on their part. 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."

The Court added that, it would prompt many other candidates to play such tactics and get job. It is a matter of chance that his illegality was unearthed. Had his illegality not been unearthed, he would have remained in service.

It emphasised that Court is not oblivious of the fact that discharge/dismissal of petitioner would cause hardship to the petitioner and his family, "however, sympathy or compassion cannot substitute law."

The Court observed that although there was no fraud in the strict sense, there was misrepresentation, and the benefit of reservation could not have been extended to a great-grandson of a freedom fighter when the Standing Order restricted the benefit only to sons, daughters, grandsons or granddaughters.

The plea was filed seeking setting aside of show cause notice whereby authorities had called upon him to show cause as to why he should not be terminated from service.

The petitioner was selected as Constable in November 2016 under the Freedom Fighter category. During subsequent scrutiny, authorities discovered that the Freedom Fighter Certificate submitted by him pertained to his father, who was the grandson of the freedom fighter Late Shingara Singh. The petitioner, being the great-grandson, did not fall within the permissible category.

An inquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathankot confirmed that the certificate enclosed by the petitioner was issued to his father. The DGP, Punjab thereafter directed issuance of a show cause notice for termination. The earlier notice (09.12.2023) was quashed by the High Court with liberty to issue a fresh notice, which led to the impugned notice dated 06.05.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar.

The petitioner submitted that the only certificate available with him and had not forged or fabricated any document and the Selection Committee itself admitted that it was unaware of the instructions restricting eligibility to grandchildren of freedom fighters.

Opposing the plea, the State counsel submitted that the Standing Order clearly restricted reservation to sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters of freedom fighters.

The Certificates must be issued in favour of the candidate by the Deputy Commissioner and the Standing Order clearly restricted reservation to sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters of freedom fighters, he added.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the advertisement and Standing Order required the candidate to furnish a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner in his favour.

The certificate produced by the petitioner certified only that his father was the grandson of the freedom fighter; it did not certify the petitioner's own status, nor could such a certificate be issued because he was a great-grandson, outside the scope of the quota, the bench said.

It concluded that, there was misrepresentation, even if without fraudulent intent.

The Court distinguished the petitioner's reliance on Dr. M.S. Mudhol vs. Shri S.D. Halegkar, 1993 (3) SCC 591, stating that in that case the candidate possessed all the qualifications and the illegality was entirely attributable to the authorities. In the present case, the petitioner did not fulfil eligibility criteria, and his continuation would “legalize his illegal act” and set a dangerous precedent.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Madhumita Das, emphasising that benefit wrongly availed under a reserved category cannot be permitted to continue merely because the candidate has been in service for some time.

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

Title: Chandandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read order