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 protection under Article 14.

ORDER :

Sujoy Paul, ACJ

In these petitions, the petitioners, dependents of Border Security Force (‘BSF’) Personnel, have called in question the constitutionality of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Unaided Non-minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007, (‘Rules of 2007’) and the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (‘Rules of 2017’), which confine the reservation of 1% seats for children of ex-servicemen and service personnel of three wings of Armed Forces viz., Army, Navy and Air Force and who domiciled in the Telangana State based on the permanent address/home-town declared by them while joining in service and as recorded in their service registers.

2. Since the question involved in both the matters is identical, on the joint request of the parties these matters were analogously heard and are decided by way of this common order. The facts are taken from W.P.No.26246 of 2024.

Factual backdrop in W.P.No. 26246 of 2024:

3. The petitioner appeared in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (‘NEET’) 2024 and secured 455 marks and applied for MBBS course. Respondent No.2 issued the prospectus/regulations for admission into MBBS and BDS courses under competent authority quota for the Academic Year 2024-25. Clause E of said prospectus provides horizontal reservation for special categories wherein 1% of seats were reserved for children of Armed Forces Personnel.

4. The father of the petitioner has rendered his services in BSF [102 BN (Battalion)] since 04.06.1986 and took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.04.1997. The petitioner appeared for NEET 2022-23 and secured qualifying marks. In the previous prospectus also a provision was made pursuant to which, only children of Armed Forces Personnel were eligible to be considered against 1% quota. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41918 of 2022 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on the basis of submissions made on behalf of the State Government that the children of the BSF Personnel shall also be considered and benefit of reservation as set out in the Rules will be extended. Recording the said submission of the Government, the aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of on 28.11.2022 (Annexure P-6). However, the petitioner could not secure a seat in the Academic Year 2022-23 because of her low merit.

5. Since in both the present Writ Petitions the Rules of 2007 and Rules of 2017 are coming in the way of petitioners for consideration against 1% quota, the petitioners have assailed G.O.Ms.Nos.66, 114 and 75 dated 29.07.2015, 05.07.2017 and 04.07.2023 respectively.

6. The principal ground of challenge to the aforesaid provisions is that Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) etc., are part of Central Armed Police Force (‘CAPF’). This is reflected in Official Memorandum (‘O.M.’), dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-10). Another O.M., dated 23.11.2012 shows that Cabinet Committee on Security has approved the proposal to declare retired CAPF Personnel as ex-CAPF Personnel. The impugned Rules whereby the benefit of reservation of 1% in seats is confined to children of personnel of Army, Navy and Air Force are discriminatory and bad in law.

Contention of the petitioners:

7. Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel and Sri K. Sridhar, learned counsel