Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Ashwani Chauhan Daughter Of Shri Bhoopendra Singh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4206/2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022
Priority-IV - Writ Petition for MBBS & BDS Course - SoP dated 01.07.2020 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India letter No.1 (2) 97/I/D (Pen-C) dated 31 Jan. 2001, Army Rule 13 3 III (iii), DESW, Ministry of Defence letter 12/1/2005/D (Res) dated 01 Feb 2006 - The court analyzed the eligibility conditions prescribed in Priority-IV and the non-eligibility condition in light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It found that the classification of armed forces personnel into different categories was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The court also highlighted the principles of equality before the law and the permissibility of reasonable classification under Article 14.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to consider her case under Priority-IV for 1% reservation for MBBS & BDS Course under NEET (UG), 2021. The petitioner challenged the condition laid down in the Standard of Procedure (SoP) issued by Kendriya Sainik Board through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The petitioner's father had served in the Indian Army and suffered 'Battle Casualty' during his deployment in OP Rakshak (J & K). The petitioner's grievance was in respect of being assigned to Priority-VI instead of Priority-IV, depriving her of admission to the MBBS Course.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eligibility conditions prescribed in Priority-IV and the non-eligibility condition were reasonable and had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It dismissed the petition, stating that the classification of armed forces personnel into different categories was not arbitrary and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Validity of eligibility conditions in Priority-IV, whether non-eligibility condition is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The classification of armed forces personnel into different categories was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The eligibility conditions prescribed in Priority-IV and the non-eligibility condition were found to be in line with the principles of equality before the law and the permissibility of reasonable classification under Article 14.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it was found to be without merit.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition was initially filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to consider her case under Priority-IV for the purpose of 1% reservation for MBBS & BDS Course under NEET (UG), 2021.
2. The petitioner also sought a direction that Priority-VI, as allotted to her, should be declared illegal and bad in the eye of law.
3. The petitioner, later on moved an amendment application and sought permission to challenge the condition laid down in Standard of Procedure (SoP) issued by Kendriya Sainik Board through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
4. This Court, granted permission to counsel for the petitioner to file amendment application and as such, the amended petition was filed.
5. The petitioner in the amended writ petition has challenged Clause-I of Priority-IV (Non-Eligibility Clause) of the SoP dated 01.07.2020 as illegal and contrary to the right of equality as guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Brief facts, in the nutshell, are that father of the petitioner had served in the Indian Army in The Grenadiers Regiment with effect from 30.05.1987 to 31.05.2017 and during his deployment in OP Rakshak (J & K), he was wounded in an encounter with Anti National Elements in the OP Rakshak (J & K) on 23.03.1992 and was declared as ’Battle Casualty’.
7. The examination process for getting admission in the MBBS Course was undertaken by the respondents and the petitioner being a ’Wards of Defense Personnel’ (hereinafter read as ’WDP’) filled up her examination form and she appeared in the said Examination-NEET UG-2021.
8. The respondents, later on, declared the result and they also mentioned the provision with regard to reservation of 1% seats towards ex-servicemen in the different category, as per information given in the booklet.
9. The petitioner submitted an online application under WDP, Ex-S4 category and accordingly the Authorities-respondents issued the list of candidates for the purpose of document verification and name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.24.
10. The petitioner has pleaded that the counselling process was undertaken by the respondents and the petitioner had appeared before the Counselling Board and showed all the relevant documents, establishing her category under Priority-IV.
11. The petitioner has further submitted that the combined merit list of counselling of Round-I for PWD candidates was issued on 22.01.2022 and name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No.23 under Priority - IV category.
12. The petitioner further asserted in the petition that in subsequent list, which was published on 26.01.2022, her name was again placed at Serial No.12 under Priority-IV.
13. The petitioner has pleaded that one S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1508/2022 Aayush Khedar and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. was filed before this Court and this Court on 18.02.2022 had dismissed the petition, as the Court was informed that the Counselling Board has conducted fresh counselling and in the Revised merit list (WDP) Round-I, the petitioners therein were given their proper category.
14. The petitioner has pleaded that subsequently the respondents when prepared the list of eligible candidates, her candidature was not considered in Priority-IV but she was considered in Priority-VI and as such the petitioner has been deprived to get admission in MBBS Course as her name was not in merit list.
15. The grievance raised by the petitioner is in respect of the Priority-IV, which has been assigned in the SoP to different wards of defence personnel.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Rishi Raj Maheshwari submitted that the respondent No.5 while providing Priority-IV to the ’Wards of Disabled in Service and Boarded out with Disability Attributable to Military Service’ have given ’Eligible’ in Part (i) Provided that all Armed Forces Personnel, who were found medically unfit for further service due to disability occurred in service conditions and are invalided out from service as per
The court affirmed that the SOP for WDP admissions was valid and did not violate equality principles, as it adhered to established guidelines.
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....
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot later challenge its fairness based on unfavorable outcomes, as established by prior Supreme Court rulings.
The classification between Armed Forces and Central Armed Police Forces for admission reservations is constitutional, as it is based on reasonable differentiation and does not violate equal protectio....
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....
The court upheld the classification of admission preferences for wards of military and para-military personnel, emphasizing merit as the sole criterion for admissions.
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
