'Orphan' Means Both Parents Dead; Candidate With Surviving Mother Can't Be Given Recruitment Weightage: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a candidate whose mother is alive cannot be treated as an "orphan" for claiming five marks of recruitment weightage, ruling that the expression "orphan" under the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) advertisement requires the death of both parents. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 249]The Court accordingly set aside a Single Judge's order directing HSSC to rework the merit list by extending the benefit to candidates whose father alone had died. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal said, "Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained being perverse to the facts as well as the 2003 Rules and is accordingly set aside. The interpretation of orphan will mean that not only both the parents of such candidate should have died prior to the last date of the application, but also that the father of such candidate should have died before attaining the age of 42 years or before the candidate concerned attained the age of 15 years."Any benefit given to a candidate other than the one who fulfills the above requisites, is liable to be withdrawn and reconsidered by the Commission, so that the actual entitled orphans are given such marks and can be given the benefit for the purpose for which the clause was framed, it added.The dispute arose from an HSSC advertisement inviting applications for 5,000 posts of Male Constable, 1,147 Female Constables, 500 Male Constables in the Indian Reserve Battalions, 400 Sub-Inspectors (Male) and 63 Sub-Inspectors (Female).Among the weightage criteria, the advertisement provided five marks under the "Orphan/Widow" category to a widow, or to a first or second child whose father had died before attaining 42 years of age or before the candidate turned 15 years old.HSSC interpreted the clause to mean that a candidate would qualify as an "orphan" only if both parents had died, in addition to the condition relating to the father's age at death. Candidates whose father alone had died challenged this interpretation, arguing that the clause referred only to the father's death and that the application form did not require uploading the mother's death certificate.They also relied on Advertisement No. 4 of 2018 for Group-D posts, where certain District Selection Committees had granted the benefit even to candidates whose mothers were alive. Accepting this contention, the Single Judge held on May 16, 2023 that HSSC could not adopt a stricter interpretation when a similar clause had been interpreted differently in another recruitment process, and directed the Commission to re-frame the merit list. That judgment was challenged in 51 connected Letters Patent Appeals by HSSC as well as by selected candidates who stood to lose their appointments if the revised merit list were implemented. Before the Division Bench, the selected candidates and HSSC argued that the author of the recruitment clause was best placed to explain its meaning and that the interpretation adopted by certain District Selection Committees in an unrelated recruitment exercise could not override HSSC's own interpretation. They further relied on the definition of "orphan" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which contemplates the death of both parents, and submitted that the selected candidates whose appointments were liable to be disturbed had not even been impleaded before the Single Judge. The original writ petitioners, on the other hand, contended that the clause referred only to the father's death and that a uniform interpretation ought to be adopted since the same clause had been construed more liberally in the Group-D recruitment. They also argued that even in the present recruitment some candidates whose mothers were alive had received the benefit. The Division Bench held that where ambiguity exists, the interpretation given by the author of the clause must ordinarily be accepted unless it is contrary to the plain language of the provision. Relying upon B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, the Court reiterated that courts cannot rewrite or supplement recruitment conditions under the guise of interpretation. The Bench found that the Single Judge had disregarded HSSC's own explanation of the clause and instead relied upon an erroneous interpretation adopted by certain District Selection Committees in an unrelated recruitment exercise. Such an approach, the Court held, amounted to judicial legislation, which is impermissible. It also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam to reiterate that courts cannot alter clear recruitment rules through interpretative exercises. The Court further observed that the very object of granting additional marks to orphans was to compensate candidates deprived of parental care and support, a disadvantage that could not be equated with the situation of a candidate who continued to have the care of ...

'Orphan' Means Both Parents Dead; Candidate With Surviving Mother Can't Be Given Recruitment Weightage: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

'Orphan' Means Both Parents Dead; Candidate With Surviving Mother Can't Be Given Recruitment Weightage: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers