EWS Reservation Is Mandatory for Sainik Schools; State's Discretion Ends Once Implementation Policy Is Framed: Madras High Court - 2025-07-23

Madras High Court Mandates EWS Reservation in Sainik Schools, Citing Constitutional Amendment

Chennai: In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has directed Sainik Schools to implement the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in their admission process. Justice C. Saravanan held that once the Central Government issued an Office Memorandum to implement the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, its application became mandatory for all Central Educational Institutions, including Sainik Schools, and could not be selectively restricted to higher education.

The court allowed a writ petition filed by Mr. Mohandoss, whose son was denied admission despite qualifying in the All India Sainik Schools Entrance Examination (AISSEE) - 2024. The court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's son for admission under the EWS quota for the academic year 2025-2026.

Case Background

The petitioner, Mr. Mohandoss, challenged the admission criteria of Sainik Schools for not including the EWS quota. His son secured 229 out of 300 marks in the AISSEE-2024 but was not admitted. The petitioner's family belongs to a community not listed in the Central OBC list, making them eligible for an EWS certificate, which they duly obtained. However, the Sainik School's Information Bulletin for 2024 did not provide for EWS reservation, which led to the legal challenge.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner argued that Article 15(6) of the Constitution, introduced by the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, mandates up to 10% reservation for EWS candidates in "educational institutions." It was contended that Sainik Schools, being established by the Central Government under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, fall under the definition of a "Central Educational Institution" as per The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. The petitioner asserted that the government's Office Memorandums (OMs) from 2019 were intended for all such institutions, not just those of higher education.

Respondents' Counter-Arguments: Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, argued on behalf of the government and the Sainik School Society. He submitted that Article 15(6) is an "enabling provision," granting the State discretion on whether, where, and to what extent EWS reservation should be implemented. He contended that a writ of mandamus could not compel the government to create a reservation policy. The government, he claimed, had made a policy decision to apply EWS reservation only to higher educational institutions, and not to school-level education.

Court's Analysis and Legal Reasoning

Justice C. Saravanan meticulously analyzed the constitutional framework and the subsequent government actions. The court traced the history of reservation in India, from the State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan case to the insertion of various clauses in Article 15.

The pivotal point of the judgment rested on the interpretation of the Office Memorandums issued on January 17, 2019. The court observed that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued a comprehensive OM detailing the implementation of 10% EWS reservation in both "civil posts and services" and "admission in Educational Institutions."

The court noted:

"A reading of the Office Memorandum dated 17th January 2019, bearing reference F.No.20013/01/2018-BC-II... makes it clear that it has also prescribed the method for implementing the promise in the above amendment. The aforesaid exercise has not excluded the respondent Sainik School."

The court rejected the government's argument that a subsequent OM from the Department of Higher Education limited the scope of the reservation. Justice Saravanan clarified that the Higher Education department's OM was merely an instrument to implement the broader policy decision already made by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The specific exclusions mentioned in that OM (certain institutions of excellence) did not include Sainik Schools.

The judgment emphasized that while Article 15(6) may be an enabling provision, the government had already exercised its power by issuing the OMs, thereby creating a binding policy.

"The Respondent Sainik School which is run by the society registered under the Societies Registration Act is thus required to implement the mandate of the amendment to the Constitution of India by insertion of Article 15(6)..."

Final Verdict and Implications

The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the restrictive reservation criteria in the Sainik School's information bulletin. It directed the respondents to:

1. Strictly implement the EWS reservation as per the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment's OM dated January 17, 2019.
2. Consider the petitioner's son for admission under the EWS category for the upcoming academic year.

This decision sets a crucial precedent, affirming that constitutional reservation policies, once operationalized by the government through official memorandums, must be applied uniformly across all intended institutions unless explicitly and lawfully excluded. It prevents administrative bodies from selectively applying such mandates based on departmental interpretations.