In order to claim admission under the reserved category for Defence Killed or permanently disabled, the petitioner must provide documentary proof that the disability was incurred during hostilities/wars or during peace time.

A. N. SHUMAN SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 to the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in any of the Engineering College under the reserved category of Defence Killed or permanently disabled in action during hostilities/wars of during peace time and for quashing the decision of the respondents cancelling the candidature of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts as stated in the petition briefly are that the petitioner qualified All India Senior School Certificate Examination, 1995 from the Central Board of Secondary. Education, and secured high grade. The respondent-University issued a Notification / Information booklet in relation to Pre-Engineering Test (PET), 1995, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is averred that the father of the petitioner is serving as Lt. Col. in Indian Army who has been categorised as permanent disabled. His disability is direct and proximate result of his posting in the State of Assam to meet out the insurgency operation where he was posted in between July, 1988 to December, 1990. Because of the tremendous anxiety and surrounding circumstances developed he became the patient of Non Insuline Dependant Diabetes Mellitus which has been resulted into permanent disability. In pursuance of the notification/advertisement issued by the respondents, petitioner submitted application form for appearing in PET Examination, 1995, It is alleged that in the application form the petitioner specifically mentioned that her father is serving in Indian Army. It is further averred that she had submitted that her candidature may be considered against the quota reserved for the candidates belonging to the category of permanently disabled Defence Personnel. The respondent-University declared the result of PET Examination, 1995 on 12-7-1995 which was published in Hindi daily newspaper known as Rajasthan Patrika and the Roll No. allotted to the petitioner in the said examination tas 3511 and she was declared as successful in the examination and the category mentioned in the newspaper against her name was D. K. (Defence Killed ). In pursuance of the notice received from the University, petitioner appeared for interview before the Interview Board on 29-7-1995. It has been further stated that the total seats reserved in the category of D. K. are "26". It has been averred in the petition that though the petitioner had been declared qualified, but at the time of interview she was informed that she cannot be given admission in any of the Engineering Colleges for the reason that he does not belongs to the category of D. K. and her father is serving in Indian Army. Thereupon, petitioners father submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor and Chairman, Selection Committee PET, 1995, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Since nothing was communicated to the petitioner reminder was sent on 30-7-1995. It is further alleged that the petitioner and her father approached to the Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan on 31-7-1995 and on 1-8-1995, but no action was taken on her request. It is alleged that the respondents have cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the father of the petitioner is still serving in Indian Army. Petitioner feeling aggrieved against the cancellation of her candidature for being admitted in any of the Engineering Colleges of the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court in the instant petition. In view of the urgency of the facts of the case, the case was directed to be listed for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the same. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, the respondent-University has stated that the petitioner does no