![JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-dsfIh319s0/maxresdefault.jpg "JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan")
Tribune News Service
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, May 20
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State of Punjab and its functionaries to adhere to “every statutory provision”, including the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, while filling vacancies in the police department. The legislation mandates that employers notify employment exchanges about job openings, ensuring transparency and equal opportunities for the job seekers.
The direction came after Jagmohan Bansal of the High Court took note of an argument raised before the court that the State and other respondents were not complying with the mandate of Employment Exchange Act while filling up the vacancies in the police department.
Taking a note of the submission, Justice Bansal emphasised the importance of following legislative requirements during the recruitment process by asserting, “The respondents are duty bound to comply with every statutory provision enacted by the competent legislature.”
The ruling came on a petition seeking the setting aside of an order dated August 26, 2021, whereby Bathinda Senior Superintendent of Police rejected the petitioner’s claim for issuance of certificate for claiming reservation under the category of ‘Wards of Police Personnel’.
The petitioner’s father, a policeman, had participated in operations against terrorists. The petitioner’s claim was that his father participated in three encounters with the terrorists. The respondents, on the other hand, were insisting that he had participated in two encounters. His role in the third encounter could not be considered as participation.
Turning down the plea, Justice Bansal asserted the name of the petitioner’s father was indubitably recorded in the third matter. But it was clear that he was not part of the operation initiated against terrorists. His role was confined to delivery of documents after the FIR’s registration.
“If the contention of petitioner is accepted, every policeman who was even remotely concerned with operation against terrorists would be eligible to the benefit which has been extended to those brave officials who had fought against terrorists. It would give undue benefit to those people who had not actually participated in operations against terrorists. It would rather amount to discrimination with those officials who had actually participated and faced the consequences of terrorist attack,” the Bench observed.
