Present:- Mr.B.S.Sra Advocate Vs. the State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059640
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-01-2013
AppellantPresent:- Mr.B.S.Sra Advocate
RespondentThe State of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryanaat chandigarh c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 date of decision:- 01.03.2013 sandeep singh ....petitioner(s) versus the state of punjab and others ....respondent(s) *** coram:- hon'ble mr.justice augustine george masih *** present:- mr.b.s.sra, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.harsimran singh sethi, addl.a.g., punjab. *** augustine george masih, j. petitioner has approached this court praying for quashing the letter dated 31.12.2010 (annexure p-6) issued by the district sainik welfare officer, amritsar-respondent no.3 refusing to grant lineal descendent ex-serviceman certificate (hereinafter referred to as the 'ldesm certificate') to the petitioner on the ground that a dependency certificate has already been issued to his elder brother, namely, jagdeep singh, who had availed the benefit of the said certificate, alleging that the said letter has been issued misconstruing rule 4 of the punjab recruitment of ex-servicemen rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 rules).prayer has also been made for quashing instruction (ii) printed on the application form for mains examination of the punjab state civil services c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -2- combined competitive examination 2009 ( for short 2009 examination) which does not allow the change of category once filled in for the preliminary examination. prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the punjab public service commission-respondent no.2 (hereinafter called the 'ppsc') to permit change the category of the petitioner from ldesm to general and consider his candidature as such in the aforesaid examination. briefly the facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the ppsc inviting applications from eligible candidates for participation in the preliminary 2009 examination, for which the last date of submission of the application forms was fixed as 28.12.2009. petitioner, after going through the brochure, applied under the category of ldesm and in column no.13 of the form entered the corresponding category code no.73 and submitted his application form on 20.12.2009. roll no.1581624710 was issued to the petitioner by the ppsc for which the examination was held on 19.12.2010. the final result of the preliminary examination was declared on 1.1.2011. petitioner obtained 315.473 marks and was declared successful in ldesm category. the result revealed that the cut-off marks for ldesm category were 203.578 and for the general category were 290.017. petitioner, even if he was treated as a general category candidate, would have cleared the preliminary examination. the successful candidates were required to fill in the examination forms for the mains examination. no certificate was required to be appended along with the application form for the preliminary c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -3- examination but for the mains examination, for which fresh application forms had to be filled up in their own hands and along with the application forms.candidates were required to attach certificates as per the list. point 6 of the list refers to esm/ldesm, punjab certificate. in the light of the said requirement, petitioner being lineal descendent of an ex-serviceman applied to the district sainik welfare officer, amritsar-respondent no.3 for issuance of a certificate. he was surprised to hear that ldesm certificate cannot be issued to the petitioner because his elder brother had already obtained the said certificate for seeking job of teacher under the punjab government and as per the 1982 rules, only one dependent child can be issued this certificate. respondent no.3 refused to give this fact in writing, however, a letter dated 31.12.2010 (annexure p-6) was addressed to the ppsc stating therein that the ldesm certificate cannot be issued to the petitioner as the benefit has already been availed of by his elder brother, namely, jagdeep singh. faced with this situation, petitioner requested in writing to the ppsc accompanied with a copy of the letter issued by respondent no.3, district sainik welfare officer, amritsar, seeking change of category from ldesm, punjab to general category for appearing in the 2009 examination but nothing was heard from respondent no.2. however, as per the instruction (ii) on the firs.page of the mains examination form, it was provided that category once applied in the preliminary examination cannot be changed and the same should be entered in the mains examination form as well. since the mains examination was coming near, petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition assailing the c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -4- action of the respondents. it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned letter dated 31.12.2010 (annexure p-6) issued by the district sainik welfare officer, amritsar-respondent no.3 cannot sustain as the same has been issued by misconstruing rule 4 of the 1982 rules. his contention is that as per this rule, 13% of the vacancies to be filled in by direct recruitment are to be reserved for the esm/ldesm category. proviso appended thereto spells out that wherever an ex-serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be reserved to be filled in by recruitment of the wife or one dependent child of the ex-serviceman, who has not been recruited against a reserved vacancy under these rules. he has emphasized that rule 4 deals with a vacancy which is reserved for the esm and, therefore, it implies that it relates to a single advertisement and the benefit of this category can be availed of in an advertisement by only one dependent child. it does not bar the other dependent children of the ex-serviceman, who would be eligible for appointment to the vacancies advertised subsequently from taking the benefit of being the lineal descendent of ex-serviceman. reference to the definition of lineal descendents has been made as given in rule 2(1)(aa) which includes sons and daughters and since these words are plural, the claim of lineal descendent of ex-serviceman cannot be restricted to one child only. his further contention is that instruction (ii) in the mains examination form, which provides that category once applied for in the preliminary examination cannot be changed, is not sustainable as the original brochure does not contain any such condition. prayer has, thus, c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -5- been made for permitting the petitioner to change the category in case his firs.claim for issuance of the ldesm certificate is not accepted by this court. counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the contention of the petitioner that the brochure did not contain any condition with regard to the subsequent change of entries/categories made in the preliminary examination form cannot sustain. for this, reference has been made to column no.9 as contained in information brochure at page no.71 to 73 of the general instructions wherein it is provided that no change in entries made in the original applications form will be allowed under any circumstances. the factum that the petitioner has been short-listed in the ldesm category, as per his option in the application form, stands admitted. prayer of the petitioner for changing his category from ldesm to that of general category has been opposed on the ground that the same is not permissible as per the brochure and instruction (ii) of the mains examination form of 2009 examination. as regards the claim of the petitioner for issuance of the ldesm certificate, it has been stated that the benefit of reservation in the category of ldesm having been availed of by his elder brother jagdeep singh, who stands appointed as a teacher in the education department, petitioner is not entitled for issuance of the same. apart from rule 4 of the 1982 rules, reliance has also been placed upon the punjab government instructions dated 23.3.2006 (annexure r-3).according to which ldesm certificate can be issued to only one claimant and if the benefit thereof has been taken, no other lineal descendent certificate can be issued. the benefit c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -6- of said certificate is, as per the mandate of the 1982 rules, restricted to once only. prayer has thus, been made for dismissal of the writ petition. i have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. before moving on to the merits of the case, it needs to be recorded here that vide interim order dated 9.2.2011, petitioner was directed to be considered as a general category candidate and was permitted to take the examination. appearance of the petitioner in the mains examination was ordered to be subject to any order passed by this court. during the cours.of hearing, it has been informed that the petitioner has not been able to qualify in the mains examination under the general category. as regards the claim of the petitioner for change of his category from ldesm to that of general category cannot be accepted in the light of the specific clause in the information brochure at pages 71 and 73 where under column no.9 of the general instructions, it is provided “no change in the entries made in the original applications form will be allowed under any circumstances.” in the light of this specific condition contained in the brochure which has the force of law, the contention of the petitioner for change of his category cannot be accepted. even otherwise, since the petitioner has failed to clear the mains examination in the general category, equity also cannot be exercised in his favour. for deciding the question as to whether a lineal descendent certificate can be issued to a dependent of an ex-serviceman, benefit of which has earlier been availed of by his/her sibling, reference to rule 4 of c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -7- the 1982 rules (annexure r-2) is necessary which reads as follows:- “4. reservation of vacancies. (1) subject to the provision of rule 3, 13% of vacancies to be filled in by direct appointment in all the state civil services and posts connected with the affairs of the state of punjab shall be reserved for being filled in by recruitment of ex-servicemen; (note: as per pb. govt. letter no.15/25/2001- 4dw/1591 dated 21.05.2002, an ex-serviceman is allowed the benefit of reservation for the second time and even thereafter in subsequent recruitment in accordance with the provisions of these rules.) provided that where an ex-serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be reserved to be filled in by recruitment of the wife or one dependent child of an ex-serviceman, who has neither been recruitment against a reserved vacancy under these rules; provided further that the wife or the dependent child of the ex-serviceman shall be recruited against the reserved vacancy subject to the conditions that:- (i) he or she possesses the prescribed qualifications and is within the prescribed age limits; (ii) he or she is not already in service; (iii) he or she will be eligible to avail the benefit only c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -8- once in life. provided further that one grand child of the gallantry award winner shall be recruited against the reserved vacancy, in case the benefit of reservation has not been availed of by any of the children or dependents of such winner or by the winner himself subject to the conditions specified in the second proviso; explanation: for the purpose of this proviso, gallantry award winner includes the winner of the paramvir chakra, the mahavir chakra, the vir chakra, the sena or nao sena or vayu sena medal and mention-in- despatches. provided further that the total number of reserved vacancies including those reserved for the candidates belonging to the scs, sts and bcs shall not exceed fifty per cent of the posts to be filled in a particular year. (2) where a reserved vacancy remains unfilled for not availability of a person eligible for recruitment under these rules such vacancy may be filled in, temporarily from any other source in accordance with the rules, regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such posts as if the vacancy was not reserved; provided that the reserved vacancies filled in shall be carried forward for the subsequent occasions arising during at least 2 years in each of which such c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -9- occasion arises for recruitment where after the vacancy in question shall be treated as un-reserved.” a perusal of the above rule would show that the reservation is primarily provided for ex-serviceman. note provides that an ex- serviceman is allowed the benefit of reservation for the second time and even thereafter in subsequent recruitments in accordance with the provisions of these rules. it is only when an ex-serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy is required to be reserved to be filled in by recruitment of the wife or one dependent child of an ex-serviceman, who has not been recruited against a reserved vacancy under these rules. further proviso makes the things clear, according to which the wife or dependent child of an ex-serviceman shall be recruited against the reserved vacancy subject to the condition that he or she possesses the prescribed qualifications and is within the prescribed age limits, he or she is not already in service and he or she will be eligible to avail the benefit only once in life. the third proviso also supports the fact that the benefit can be availed of only once. according to this proviso, one grand child of a gallantry award winner can be recruited against the reserved vacancy in case the benefit of reservation has not been availed of by any of the children or dependents of such winner or by the winner himself subject to the conditions specified in the second proviso. what culls out from the above is that in case the ex-serviceman avails of the benefit of reservation, his wife or dependent child as also the grand-children (of gallantry award winner ) shall not be eligible for benefit c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -10- of reservation under the ex-serviceman category. in case the ex- serviceman does not avail of the said benefit himself, then the benefit can be availed of by the wife or one dependent child of the ex-serviceman and that too, if the benefit of reservation has not been taken by any of them under the 1982 rules. this obviously means that if either of them takes benefit of the reservation under the 1982 rules, no benefit can be claimed by other lineal descendent of the ex-serviceman. second proviso clarifies the position further by stating that benefit of reservation can be availed of only once in life. one grand child of a gallantry award winner is also entitled to the benefit of reservation in case the gallantry award winner himself and if he has not, then any of his children or dependent has also not availed of the said benefit of reservation. instructions dated 23.3.2006 (annexure r-3) issued by the director, sainik welfare punjab are also in consonance with the 1982 rules and rightly provides that benefit of reservation of ex-serviceman can be availed of by only one lineal descendent of ex-serviceman and if such benefit has been availed of, lineal descendent certificate cannot be issued to other descendents of the ex-serviceman. in the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the benefit of reservation is only restricted to a particular advertisement where the vacancies have been advertised cannot be accepted. action of respondent no.3 in denying the issuance of the lineal descendent certificate of an ex-serviceman to the petitioner, in the light of the fact that his elder brother jagdeep singh had been issued the said certificate and the benefit has also been availed of by him as he stands appointed as a c.w.p.no.1421 of 2011 -11- teacher in the education department, punjab, is in accordance with the 1982 statutory rules. in the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. march 01, 2013 ( augustine george masih ) poonam judge
Judgment:

C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 01.03.2013 Sandeep Singh ....Petitioner(s) versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.B.S.Sra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Harsimran Singh Sethi, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

*** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing the letter dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P-6) issued by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Amritsar-respondent No.3 refusing to grant Lineal Descendent Ex-Serviceman Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the 'LDESM Certificate') to the petitioner on the ground that a dependency certificate has already been issued to his elder brother, namely, Jagdeep Singh, who had availed the benefit of the said certificate, alleging that the said letter has been issued misconstruing Rule 4 of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Rules).Prayer has also been made for quashing instruction (ii) printed on the application form for mains examination of the Punjab State Civil Services C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -2- Combined Competitive Examination 2009 ( for short 2009 examination) which does not allow the change of category once filled in for the preliminary examination.

Prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the Punjab Public Service Commission-respondent No.2 (hereinafter called the 'PPSC') to permit change the category of the petitioner from LDESM to General and consider his candidature as such in the aforesaid examination.

Briefly the facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the PPSC inviting applications from eligible candidates for participation in the preliminary 2009 examination, for which the last date of submission of the application forms was fixed as 28.12.2009.

Petitioner, after going through the brochure, applied under the category of LDESM and in Column No.13 of the form entered the corresponding category Code No.73 and submitted his application form on 20.12.2009.

Roll No.1581624710 was issued to the petitioner by the PPSC for which the examination was held on 19.12.2010.

The final result of the preliminary examination was declared on 1.1.2011.

Petitioner obtained 315.473 marks and was declared successful in LDESM category.

The result revealed that the cut-off marks for LDESM category were 203.578 and for the general category were 290.017.

Petitioner, even if he was treated as a general category candidate, would have cleared the preliminary examination.

The successful candidates were required to fill in the examination forms for the Mains Examination.

No certificate was required to be appended along with the application form for the preliminary C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -3- examination but for the mains examination, for which fresh application forms had to be filled up in their own hands and along with the application forMs.candidates were required to attach Certificates as per the list.

Point 6 of the list refers to ESM/LDESM, Punjab Certificate.

In the light of the said requirement, petitioner being lineal descendent of an Ex-serviceman applied to the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Amritsar-respondent No.3 for issuance of a certificate.

He was surprised to hear that LDESM Certificate cannot be issued to the petitioner because his elder brother had already obtained the said certificate for seeking job of Teacher under the Punjab Government and as per the 1982 Rules, only one dependent child can be issued this certificate.

Respondent No.3 refused to give this fact in writing, however, a letter dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P-6) was addressed to the PPSC stating therein that the LDESM Certificate cannot be issued to the petitioner as the benefit has already been availed of by his elder brother, namely, Jagdeep Singh.

Faced with this situation, petitioner requested in writing to the PPSC accompanied with a copy of the letter issued by respondent No.3, District Sainik Welfare Officer, Amritsar, seeking change of category from LDESM, Punjab to General category for appearing in the 2009 Examination but nothing was heard from respondent No.2.

However, as per the instruction (ii) on the fiRs.page of the mains examination form, it was provided that category once applied in the preliminary examination cannot be changed and the same should be entered in the mains examination form as well.

Since the mains examination was coming near, petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition assailing the C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -4- action of the respondents.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned letter dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P-6) issued by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Amritsar-respondent No.3 cannot sustain as the same has been issued by misconstruing Rule 4 of the 1982 Rules.

His contention is that as per this Rule, 13% of the vacancies to be filled in by direct recruitment are to be reserved for the ESM/LDESM category.

Proviso appended thereto spells out that wherever an ex-serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be reserved to be filled in by recruitment of the wife or one dependent child of the Ex-Serviceman, who has not been recruited against a reserved vacancy under these Rules.

He has emphasized that Rule 4 deals with a vacancy which is reserved for the ESM and, therefore, it implies that it relates to a single advertisement and the benefit of this category can be availed of in an advertisement by only one dependent child.

It does not bar the other dependent children of the Ex-Serviceman, who would be eligible for appointment to the vacancies advertised subsequently from taking the benefit of being the Lineal Descendent of Ex-Serviceman.

Reference to the definition of Lineal Descendents has been made as given in Rule 2(1)(aa) which includes sons and daughters and since these words are plural, the claim of Lineal Descendent of Ex-Serviceman cannot be restricted to one child only.

His further contention is that instruction (ii) in the mains examination form, which provides that category once applied for in the preliminary examination cannot be changed, is not sustainable as the original Brochure does not contain any such condition.

Prayer has, thus, C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -5- been made for permitting the petitioner to change the category in case his fiRs.claim for issuance of the LDESM certificate is not accepted by this Court.

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the contention of the petitioner that the Brochure did not contain any condition with regard to the subsequent change of entries/categories made in the preliminary examination form cannot sustain.

For this, reference has been made to column No.9 as contained in information Brochure at page No.71 to 73 of the General instructions wherein it is provided that no change in entries made in the original applications form will be allowed under any circumstances.

The factum that the petitioner has been short-listed in the LDESM category, as per his option in the application form, stands admitted.

Prayer of the petitioner for changing his category from LDESM to that of general category has been opposed on the ground that the same is not permissible as per the Brochure and instruction (ii) of the mains examination form of 2009 Examination.

As regards the claim of the petitioner for issuance of the LDESM Certificate, it has been stated that the benefit of reservation in the category of LDESM having been availed of by his elder brother Jagdeep Singh, who stands appointed as a Teacher in the Education Department, petitioner is not entitled for issuance of the same.

Apart from Rule 4 of the 1982 Rules, reliance has also been placed upon the Punjab Government instructions dated 23.3.2006 (Annexure R-3).according to which LDESM certificate can be issued to only one claimant and if the benefit thereof has been taken, no other lineal descendent certificate can be issued.

The benefit C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -6- of said certificate is, as per the mandate of the 1982 Rules, restricted to once only.

Prayer has thus, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

Before moving on to the merits of the case, it needs to be recorded here that vide interim order dated 9.2.2011, petitioner was directed to be considered as a general category candidate and was permitted to take the examination.

Appearance of the petitioner in the mains examination was ordered to be subject to any order passed by this Court.

During the couRs.of hearing, it has been informed that the petitioner has not been able to qualify in the mains examination under the General category.

As regards the claim of the petitioner for change of his category from LDESM to that of General category cannot be accepted in the light of the specific clause in the information Brochure at pages 71 and 73 where under column No.9 of the general instructions, it is provided “No change in the entries made in the original applications form will be allowed under any circumstances.”

In the light of this specific condition contained in the Brochure which has the force of law, the contention of the petitioner for change of his category cannot be accepted.

Even otherwise, since the petitioner has failed to clear the mains examination in the General category, equity also cannot be exercised in his favour.

For deciding the question as to whether a lineal descendent certificate can be issued to a dependent of an Ex-serviceman, benefit of which has earlier been availed of by his/her sibling, reference to Rule 4 of C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -7- the 1982 Rules (Annexure R-2) is necessary which reads as follows:- “4.

Reservation of Vacancies.

(1) Subject to the provision of rule 3, 13% of vacancies to be filled in by direct appointment in all the State Civil Services and posts connected with the affairs of the State of Punjab shall be reserved for being filled in by recruitment of Ex-servicemen; (Note: As per Pb.

Govt.

Letter No.15/25/2001- 4DW/1591 dated 21.05.2002, an Ex-Serviceman is allowed the benefit of Reservation for the second time and even thereafter in subsequent recruitment in accordance with the provisions of these Rules.) Provided that where an Ex-serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be reserved to be filled in by recruitment of the wife or one dependent child of an Ex-serviceman, who has neither been recruitment against a reserved vacancy under these rules; Provided further that the wife or the dependent child of the ex-serviceman shall be recruited against the reserved vacancy subject to the conditions that:- (i) he or she possesses the prescribed qualifications and is within the prescribed age limits; (ii) he or she is not already in service; (iii) he or she will be eligible to avail the benefit only C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -8- once in life.

Provided further that one grand child of the Gallantry Award Winner shall be recruited against the reserved vacancy, in case the benefit of reservation has not been availed of by any of the children or dependents of such winner or by the winner himself subject to the conditions specified in the second proviso; Explanation: For the purpose of this proviso, Gallantry Award Winner includes the winner of the Paramvir Chakra, the Mahavir Chakra, the Vir Chakra, the Sena or Nao Sena or Vayu Sena Medal and Mention-in- Despatches.

Provided further that the total number of reserved vacancies including those reserved for the candidates belonging to the SCs, STs and BCs shall not exceed fifty per cent of the posts to be filled in a particular year.

(2) Where a reserved vacancy remains unfilled for not availability of a person eligible for recruitment under these rules such vacancy may be filled in, temporarily from any other source in accordance with the rules, regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such posts as if the vacancy was not reserved; Provided that the reserved vacancies filled in shall be carried forward for the subsequent occasions arising during at least 2 years in each of which such C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -9- occasion arises for recruitment where after the vacancy in question shall be treated as un-reserved.”

A perusal of the above Rule would show that the reservation is primarily provided for Ex-serviceman.

Note provides that an Ex- serviceman is allowed the benefit of reservation for the second time and even thereafter in subsequent recruitments in accordance with the provisions of these Rules.

It is only when an Ex-serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy is required to be reserved to be filled in by recruitment of the wife or one dependent child of an Ex-serviceman, who has not been recruited against a reserved vacancy under these rules.

Further proviso makes the things clear, according to which the wife or dependent child of an Ex-serviceman shall be recruited against the reserved vacancy subject to the condition that he or she possesses the prescribed qualifications and is within the prescribed age limits, he or she is not already in service and he or she will be eligible to avail the benefit only once in life.

The third proviso also supports the fact that the benefit can be availed of only once.

According to this proviso, one grand child of a Gallantry Award Winner can be recruited against the reserved vacancy in case the benefit of reservation has not been availed of by any of the children or dependents of such winner or by the winner himself subject to the conditions specified in the second proviso.

What culls out from the above is that in case the Ex-serviceman avails of the benefit of reservation, his wife or dependent child as also the grand-children (of Gallantry Award Winner ) shall not be eligible for benefit C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -10- of reservation under the Ex-Serviceman category.

In case the Ex- serviceman does not avail of the said benefit himself, then the benefit can be availed of by the wife or one dependent child of the Ex-serviceman and that too, if the benefit of reservation has not been taken by any of them under the 1982 Rules.

This obviously means that if either of them takes benefit of the reservation under the 1982 Rules, no benefit can be claimed by other Lineal Descendent of the Ex-serviceman.

Second proviso clarifies the position further by stating that benefit of reservation can be availed of only once in life.

One grand child of a Gallantry Award Winner is also entitled to the benefit of reservation in case the Gallantry Award Winner himself and if he has not, then any of his children or dependent has also not availed of the said benefit of reservation.

Instructions dated 23.3.2006 (Annexure R-3) issued by the Director, Sainik Welfare Punjab are also in consonance with the 1982 Rules and rightly provides that benefit of reservation of Ex-serviceman can be availed of by only one lineal descendent of Ex-serviceman and if such benefit has been availed of, lineal descendent certificate cannot be issued to other descendents of the Ex-serviceman.

In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the benefit of reservation is only restricted to a particular advertisement where the vacancies have been advertised cannot be accepted.

Action of respondent No.3 in denying the issuance of the Lineal Descendent Certificate of an Ex-serviceman to the petitioner, in the light of the fact that his elder brother Jagdeep Singh had been issued the said certificate and the benefit has also been availed of by him as he stands appointed as a C.W.P.No.1421 of 2011 -11- Teacher in the Education Department, Punjab, is in accordance with the 1982 Statutory Rules.

In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.

March 01, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE