RANJANA DEVI VS STATE OF HP

RANJANA DEVI VS STATE OF HP

(L. Narayana Swamy, CJ. and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. )

Civil Writ Petition No. 4024 of 2019, 4025 of 2019, 4026 of 2019, 4031 of 2019, 4042 of 2019, 4050 of 2019, 4051 of 2019, 4061 of 2019, 4054 of 2019, 4071 of 2019, 4092 of 2019, 4112 of 2019, 4118 of 2019, 4162 of 2019, 4184 of 2019, 4188 of 2019, 4242 of 2019, 4257 of 2019, 4280 of 2019, 4283 of 2019, 4291 of 2019 Decided on : 21-12-2019

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, Ranjana Pramar, Advocate, Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate, Surinder Saklani, Advocate, Nitin Thakur, Advocate, Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate, Sudhanshu Jamwal, Advocate, Nitish Kaith, Advocate, Hardeep Roshta, Advocate, Goldy Kumar, Advocate, Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate, Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, J.K. Verma, Advocate, Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, Rajat Chauhan, Advocate

L. Narayana Swamy, C.J. - 

Subject matter involved in these writ petitions is - whether the married daughters/wards of Freedom Fighters are entitled to reservation in recruitment?

2. The facts in all the writ petitions are common. We deem it proper to take facts from CWP No. 4054 of 2019. The case of the petitioners, in brief, are that the State Government issued Notification on 29th November, 2019 for recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse (Ward of Ex-Servicemen) on Batch wise basis. According to the aforesaid Notification, married daughters of Ex-servicemen were excluded for being appointed against the post of Staff Nurse (Ward of Ex-servicemen).

3. The subject matter involved in these writ petitions was also the subject matter in various writ petitions before this Court, including CWPIL No. 114 of 2017, titled as Court on its own motion versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The said Public Interest Litigation was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14th August, 2018, wherein it was held that the Policy of the State Government, confining benefits to the unmarried daughter alone, unlike married, is contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the said Notification was quashed and set aside.

4. The judgment passed by this Court in CWPIL No. 114 of 2017 was challenged by the respondents-State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil Diary No(s) 19577 of 2019, titled as the State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus The High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The Hon'be Supreme Court vide order dated 13.12.2019, dismissed the aforesaid Special Leave Petition and upheld the judgment passed by this Court in CWPIL No. 114 of 2017.

5. In the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents-State to examine the case of the petitioners, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWPIL No. 114 of 2017. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted herein below: 

" 33. Thus, we hold that the Policy of the State, confining benefits to the unmarried daughter alone, unlike married son, is not in line with the object, which is sought to be achieved by conferring benefit of reservation, horizontal in nature, to the wards of Freedom Fighters. The object is to acknowledge the sacrifices made by the Freedom Fighters, by providing benefit to their wards. It is not to perpetuate the lineage of legacy only through a male descendent. The object also cannot be to perpetuate discrimination on the basis of sex.

34. We are of the considered view that, of late, consistently, this Court has taken a view that the State cannot discriminate on the ground of gender, while giving benefit of reservation only to the married sons and not the married daughters, being wards of the Freedom Fighter. The Policy to this extent is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and thus needs to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.

35. The questions are, thus, answered as under, by holding that {(1) and (2)} the Policy of the State is discriminatory, and (3) in confining benefits of reservation to married sons unlike married daughters, there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved in providing reservation for wards of Freedom Fighters. 36. Hence, present petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any. "

6. The judgments, supra shall form part of this judgment, also.

7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Final Result : Disposed