Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Viney Chaudhary S/o Shri Dharam Pal Singh, R/o A-62, Katwaria Sarai, Near Mother Dairy, New Delhi-16 – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through The Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare, Room No. 237 `b` Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi
Secretary Higher Education Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, B-wing, 2nd Floor, 5 Sham Nath Marg, New Delhi-54 – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3285 of 2023 & CM APPL. 12796 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Reservation - Army Quota - Priority VI, Priority VIII - F.No.6(1)/2017/D(Res.II) - The court discussed the categorization of priorities in the Army quota of 5% for admission to various colleges. It highlighted the lack of intelligible differentia between Priority VI and Priority VIII and the challenge to the violation of Fundamental and Legal Rights and Right to Equality. The court found that the categorization was a policy decision taken by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, and there was no arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fide in the categorization of the wards in Priority VI and Priority VIII. The petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Order providing inter-se priority for reservation/preference to the wards of Armed Forced personnel by States/UTs for admission to Medical/Professional/Non-Professional Courses. The petitioner was aggrieved by the placement of wards of ex-servicemen in Priority VI while wards of serving personnel were placed in Priority VIII.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the categorization was a policy decision taken by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, and there was no arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fide in the categorization of the wards in Priority VI and Priority VIII. The petition was dismissed.
Issues: The challenge to the violation of Fundamental and Legal Rights and Right to Equality due to the lack of intelligible differentia between Priority VI and Priority VIII.
Ratio Decidendi: The categorization of priorities in the Army quota of 5% for admission to various colleges was a policy decision taken by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, and there was no arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fide in the categorization of the wards in Priority VI and Priority VIII.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed along with pending application.
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to quash the impugned Order/Letter dated 21.05.2018 of Respondent No. 1 giving the categories of Priority within the reservations provided in the Army quota of 5% for admission to various Colleges; and to give directions to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to treat/include Priority No. VIII above the Priority No. VI or in alternative to consider both the Priority Nos. VI and VIII at the same podium for the admissions in the forthcoming Academic Year 2023-24.
2. The wife of the petitioner is serving as Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army and is currently posted at New Delhi. The son of the petitioner, namely, Master Divyansh Chaudhary, is a student of Class XII in Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, who is aspiring to become a Software Engineer to pursue Bachelor of Technology (hereinafter referred to as "B.Tech") Course for which the qualifying examination is the Joint Entrance Examination (Main) (JEE), and the said examination was scheduled to be conducted w.e.f. 06.04.2023 to 12.04.2023.
3. The respondent No. 1 vide its Letter/Order dated 21.05.2018 made nine categories along with their Priorities for providing reservation to the medical/professional/non-professional courses throughout the country in the following manner:
"Priority-I: Wards of Defence Personnel Killed in action.
Priority-II: Wards of serving Defence Personnel disabled in action.
Priority-III: Wards of Defence Personnel who died in peace time with death attributable to Military Service.
Priority-IV: Wards of Defence Personnel disabled in peace time with disability attributable to Military Service.
Priority-V: Wards of Ex-servicemen and Serving Defence Personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards.
Priority-VI: Wards of Ex-servicemen.
Priority-VII:Wives of Ex-servicemen and Serving Defence Personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards.
Priority-VIII: Wards of Serving Personnel.
Priority-IX: Wives of Serving Personnel."
4. The eligible candidates under their respective category would be entitled to admission as per their Priority irrespective of their ranks/marks scored which would become relevant when there are more than one candidate under one Priority. Thus, even a meritorious candidate will not be offered a seat under this reservation, if a candidate, higher in Priority, is willing to take that seat, even though he has got lower marks/rank.
5. The son of the petitioner while going through the counselling/cut-off charts of various Engineering Colleges of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "GNCTD") found that the majority of reservation benefits is being taken away only by Priority-VI leaving no seat available for the remaining Priorities, especially Priority-VIII, in getting admission to various professional courses. The aforesaid anomaly was raised by the petitioner before the Competent Authority but not a muscle was moved.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner made the Representation dated 16.12.2022 to the respondents, but no response to the said Representation was forthcoming from the respondents.
7. The petitioner, thereafter, raised his Grievance bearing No. (MODEF/E/2023/0000732) dated 03.02.2023 online through E-Portal of the respondent No. 1, and the same was followed by the Reminders dated 08.02.2023 and 17.02.2023, but the concerns of the petitioner fell on deaf ears as the respondent No. 1 neither tried to rectify the anomaly nor bothered to reply to the communications made by the petitioner.
8. It is claimed that while categorising the Priority-V and the Priority-VII, both wards of Ex-servicemen and of Serving Personnel have been put in the same category; however, no intelligible differentia has been applied while categorising the Priority-VI and the Priority-VIII. In fact, it is a biased act to give deliberate benefit to the wards of Ex-servicemen over the Serving Person
The eligibility for admission under the Children and Wards of Defence Personnel category requires a clear distinction between those boarded out with service-attributable disabilities and those who co....
The court upheld the classification of admission preferences for wards of military and para-military personnel, emphasizing merit as the sole criterion for admissions.
The court affirmed that the SOP for WDP admissions was valid and did not violate equality principles, as it adhered to established guidelines.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of subsequent government orders on the applicability of historical reservation policies, specifically G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 30.06.1979....
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot later challenge its fairness based on unfavorable outcomes, as established by prior Supreme Court rulings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
