Wards Of Soldiers Disabled In Action But Retained In Service Not Entitled To Priority-II Reservation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that wards of such armed forces personnel who suffered disability during military operations but were retained in service and completed their tenure are not entitled to Priority-II reservation under the Defence quota.

Justice Vikas Mahajan held that the quota is meant only for wards of personnel who were boarded out of service on account of disability attributable to military service.

The bench observed,

“wards of armed forces personnel who are injured/disabled-in-action and are boarded out after having undergone invaliding proceeding by IMB are eligible for claiming “Priority-II”...However, those, who were retained in service despite disability and had an opportunity to render full service and actually rendered full service or voluntarily took retirement prematurely, are to be considered eligible only under “Priority-VI”.

For context, persons falling in Priority-II category receive high preference, often second only to personnel killed in action, for seats in universities and specialized courses.

Priority-IV category focuses on disabled, non-battle personnel, placing them lower in preference for seat allocation.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking admission under the Defence quota, claiming Priority-II status on the ground that his father had suffered a battle-related disability during service. However, the armed forces officer had continued in service despite the disability and completed full tenure, after which he retired normally.

Petitioner argued that denying Priority-II status in such circumstances amounted to discrimination and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also contended that the policy unfairly distinguished between similarly placed wards of battle-casualty personnel.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court noted that Priority-II is specifically intended to benefit wards of personnel who were boarded out due to disability, as such families suffer financial hardships, as compared to those who are retained in service and will continue to receive full salary, all promotions and other associated benefits.

It observed,

“there exists a reasonable basis for such classification, which has a distinct rationale and a clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Main object for incorporating these priorities is to recognize the fact that the concerned Armed Forces Personnel, who incurred 'disability in action' or 'disability in service' and could not complete the normal service tenure, their wards should be compensated by giving higher priorities viz. “PriorityII” or “Priority-IV”, respectively, so that they should not feel left out on being 'boarded out'.”

The Court added that reservation priorities are a matter of policy, and unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional, Courts ought not to interfere.

As such, the Court upheld the validity of the 2018 Defence quota policy and ruled that the petitioner was correctly placed in a lower priority category.

Appearance: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Disha Joshi, Mr. Shashank Jain and Ms. Asmita Singh, Advs. for Petitioners; Mr. Abhishek Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav and Mr. Atul Kumar, Advs. for R-1 to R-3. Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr. C. Sanal Nambiar, Ms. Chetna Singh and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Advs. for R-4.

Case title: Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI

Case no.: W.P.(C) 4338/2025

Click here to read order