AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Doabia, J.—The learned Single Judge of this Court has expressed an opinion that reservation provided vide Govt. Order No.
Home361/Police of 1997 dated 27.7.1979 has created a right in favour of the respondentwrit petitioners to seek consideration against the
reserved category of `Children of the Policeman'. Particular reliance is being placed on paragraph ""13"" of this Government Order. This para makes
mention of the fact that 15% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment are to be reserved for the children of policemen. It has been held that the
claims of the children of policemen was required to be given a fresh look. It is this view expressed by a Learned Single Judge, which is subject
matter of challenge in this appeal.
It is urged that the Learned Single Judge has not been taken notice of the last three lines of the Government Order dated 27.7.1979. For facility
of reference paragraph ""13"" of the said order is being reproduced below :
15% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment be reserved for the children of police men.
Further consequential amendments in the revised pay rules, police manual and other rules as required shall be made separately as the case may
be.
It is accordingly urged that unless and until there was amendment in the police manual the Government order in question could not be given
effect to.
It is also urged that J&K Reservation Rules of 1994, deal with the subject of reservations. As no reservation was ever made with regard to this
category i.e. the wards of the policemen, therefore no reservation was available. Otherwise it is stated that even if it is presumed that there is such a
reservation made, it would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The question as to whether reservation can be made in favour of the Government Employees be examined at the first instance.
In the case reported as Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and others, AIR 1989 SC 903, admission was being given by Punjab University to the
three years degree course in the discipline of law. Some benefit was sought to be given to the employees of Government and Semigovernment and
in similar institutions. It was observed that there is no rationale in the matter of carving out this category. In para 14 of the judgment it was
observed :
It is difficult to accept the contention that the Government employees or the employees of SemiGovernment and other institutions, as mentioned in
the impugned rule, stand on a different footing from the employees of private concerns, in so far as the question of admission to evening classes is
concerned. It is true that the service conditions of employees of Government/SemiGovernment institutions etc. are different, and they may have
greater security of service, but that hardly matters for the purpose of admission in the evening classes.....
In Parveen Hans v. The Registrar, Punjab University Chandigarh and anr., 1990(1) SLR 808 reservation of seats for employees of University
and their kins was held to be discriminatory. Similar view has been expressed in the case reported as Ashwinder Kaur v. Punjab University, AIR
1989 Punjab and Haryana 190.
As a matter of fact relaxation in favour of the relatives of Police officials as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi was found unconstitutional.
See Yogender Pal Singh and others v. Union of India and ors., AIT 1987 SC 1015.
We are of the view that Government Order of 1979 in so far as carves out a reservation in favour of the employees of the Police department
alone is not sustainable. Even otherwise the Government Order makes it apparent that the proposal would become effective only after the proposal
as contained in the Government order was given the shape of a rule. Amendment was required to be made out in the Police Manual. This never
happened in this case. Therefore, looking from any point of view the reasoning given by the Learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. There can
be no reservation in favour of the wards of police personnels. This appeal is allowed. Writ petition shall stand dismissed.