The High Court answers that, unless the Haryana Government expressly adopts Central Government instructions extending Ex-Serviceman status to retired BSF (or other CAPF) personnel, such individuals cannot claim reservation benefits meant for Defence Force Ex-Servicemen; the Court affirms current Haryana Government policy and confirms that courts cannot compel executive action of adoption. This judgment reaffirms and clarifies the existing legal position—serving as binding precedent for public employment and reservation disputes in the State of Haryana involving Central Para-Military retirees.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/4797/2017 of SURAJ BHAN Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. CNR PHHC011022072017 |
| Date of Registration | 07-03-2017 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Haryana |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Reservation/Ex-Servicemen Status) |
| Questions of Law | Whether BSF retirees are “Ex-Servicemen” eligible for reservation in Haryana Government jobs in the absence of state adoption of Central instructions. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Haryana Government has not adopted the Central Government’s instructions that designate retired BSF/Para-Military personnel as “Ex-CAPF” eligible for the benefits extended to Defence Forces Ex-Servicemen. Unless and until the State expressly adopts such instructions or expands the definition of “Ex-Serviceman” in its policies, courts cannot compel the State to do so. As a result, retired BSF personnel, such as the petitioner, are not entitled to reservation or appointment under the Ex-Serviceman category in Haryana Government jobs. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the language of government instructions and clarifications which restrict the definition of “Ex-Serviceman” to Defence Forces unless otherwise adopted by the State. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a retired BSF Constable, had applied under the Ex-Serviceman category for a Haryana Police Constable post, cleared all selection stages, but was denied appointment. The Court examined whether Central Government memoranda and clarifications had been adopted by the Haryana Government, ultimately finding they had not and thus petitioner was ineligible under Haryana policy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the State of Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Service law disputes in other States regarding adoption of Central Para-Military Ex-Serviceman policies |
| Follows | Government of India clarifications dated 23.11.2012 and 24.04.2019 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment confirms that reservation for Ex-Servicemen in Haryana State Government jobs does not extend to retired Central Para-Military (e.g., BSF) personnel unless the State expressly adopts Central instructions.
- Petitions seeking mandamus for executive adoption of Central “Ex-CAPF” status are likely to fail absent State action.
- Lawyers representing clients from Para-Military backgrounds must verify the latest position/state adoption before claiming Ex-Serviceman reservation benefits.
- Categorical denial that courts can compel the State to expand the definition of “Ex-Serviceman” in absence of a policy decision.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the petitioner’s claim, which relied on the Central Government Office Memorandum dated 23.11.2012, proposing that retired personnel from CAPF including BSF be designated as “Ex-CAPF” and may be extended benefits on the lines of Defence Forces Ex-Servicemen.
- The Court examined affidavits from the DGP and Haryana Staff Selection Commission, which clarified that Haryana had not adopted the Central Government’s proposal.
- Further, the Central Government’s clarification dated 24.04.2019 specifically stated that CAPF personnel, including BSF, were not covered under the definition of “Ex-Serviceman” for State Government reservation unless the State chooses to adopt such policy.
- The Court held that, as the respondent-State has not adopted such instructions or expanded the definition, it has no authority to direct the issuance of an appointment letter to the petitioner under the Ex-Serviceman category.
- The Court thus dismissed the writ petition, while preserving the petitioner’s liberty to seek remedy if State policy changes in future.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought appointment under Ex-Serviceman category, relying on the Central Government Office Memorandum dated 23.11.2012, which proposed Ex-CAPF status and extension of reservation benefits.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that Haryana has not adopted the Central Government instructions regarding Ex-CAPF status.
- Placed on record a clarification dated 24.04.2019 from the Central Government, stating that CAPF/BSF personnel do not qualify as Ex-Servicemen under existing definition.
- Asserted that, accordingly, the petitioner’s claim under the Ex-Serviceman category cannot be considered.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a retired Constable from the Border Security Force (BSF) with 21 years of service, applied for the post of Constable in Haryana under the Ex-Serviceman category, following an advertisement dated 19.07.2015. He successfully cleared all phases of the selection process but was ultimately denied appointment on the grounds of ineligibility under the Ex-Serviceman category. The petitioner’s eligibility hinged on whether Haryana had extended Ex-Serviceman reservation benefits to retired Para-Military personnel following Central Government advisories. The State, however, maintained that such adoption had not occurred.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment analyzed the legal effect of the Office Memorandum dated 23.11.2012 issued by the Government of India, which proposed designating retired CAPF personnel as “Ex-CAPF.”
- The Court also considered the Central Government clarification dated 24.04.2019, which defined “Ex-Serviceman” and specifically excluded CAPF/BSF personnel from its scope unless adopted by State Governments.
- No statutory provision was interpreted expansively; the Court strictly followed the definitions and adoption procedures laid out in existing policy documents.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding State discretion over adoption of Central instructions is reaffirmed.