Reservation Demand For Wards Of Gallantry Awardee Military Personnel, Rajasthan High Court Rejects Claim

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sameer Jain of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the policy by under which the wards of Gallantry Award recipients were not included in the categories of reservation contrary to the policy in place in the year 2021. The Court held that it could not extend its powers of judicial review as the policy makers had applied their mind while enlisting the categories.BackgroundThe petitioners' father was a recipient of a Gallantry Award. He received the award on 11.05.2024. As per the information bulletin for NEET U.G-2021, the children of Gallantry awardee Military Personnel as well as Para-Military Personnel were to be given preference in admissions to MBBS/BDS courses against 1% quota for wards of ex-servicemen. As per the admissions under NEET-UG-2024, a contrary approach was taken and the Ministry of Home Affairs maintained 9 categories of priority. Placing the Gallantry awardee Military personnel on a pedestal, three categories of priority are made out in relation to wards of Para-military Personnel and no priority was to be given to the wards of Gallantry awardees.As per the clarification order dated 22.08.2024, the Director of Sainik Kalyan Board, Rajasthan issued directions to consider the Petitioner under category 2 and 3 of the said priority list pertaining to wards of Para-Military personnel. The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was adversely affected and undue hardship was caused to him due to not being given priority which was due to him as per the information booklet containing priority list for NEET UG 2021, being a ward of Gallantry awardee Para-military personnel.Terming it 'discriminatory', the Counsel submitted that the Respondents had used a differential manner to approach the wards of Military and Para-military categories in relation to their reservation. While making these contentions, the Counsel relied on Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.; AIR 1983 SC 130, D. S. Nakara & Ors. versus Union of India and Dipak Sibal versus Punjab University and Another.On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent contended that as per the directions through letter dated 06.06.2024, the information booklet in relation to NEET UG 2024 was issued. As per the booklet, only three categories namely Priority-I, Priority-II and Priority-III were created by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Director General, Central Industrial Security Forces. Moreover, on 01.10.2024, a Letter was also issued, clarifying that no other priority or Category of reservation apart from the ones specified was maintainable. It was further submitted that the creation of any policy regarding Para-military personnel was a prerogative under the Ministry of Home Affairs and similarly that of policies for wards of Military personnel was under the Ministry of Defence. The Counsel asserted that these preferences were made after due consideration after eliminating any arbitrariness or illegality.Relying further on Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors., the Counsel submitted that 1% of reservation was extended to wards of Para-Military personnel and Military personnel with merit and there was nothing contrary to such rule under professional courses.The Counsel apprised the Court that the process of counselling after admissions was over and even the seats were allocated to the candidates. It was stated that at this stage, there should not be any interruption by the Court.Findings of the Court The Court observed that the issue was to determine the petitioners' candidature under 1% quota assigned to wards of Gallantry awardee Military and Para-Military personnel for admissions under NEET UG-2024 examination. After perusing the priority order for Defence personnel of Military and Paramilitary forces as per the information bulletin pertaining to NEET UG-2024, the Court observed that the State Counselling Board had to follow the directions of competent authority under CISF/CAPF or Para-Military forces as well as the advisory letter dated 06.06.2024. As per the advisory letter, only three categories of priority were contained in the information booklet as mentioned below:“(i) Priority-I : Wards/Widows of those Killed in Action (i.e. Those who are eligible for LPA- Liberalized Pensionary Awards) (ii) Priority- II : Wards/Widows/wives of personnel permanently disabled in action and boarded out from service. (iii) Priority-III : Wards of all serving and retired personnel.”Observing that the Deputy Inspector General had specified that the candidature of the present petitioner could not be considered in any category apart from the three enlisted categories, the Court held that the same was to be followed in letter and spirit. The Court considered the submission of the Counsel for the Respondent that 'all recipients of gallantry medals including those from Para-military/Police Forces were eligible to get the benefit of reservation under...

Reservation Demand For Wards Of Gallantry Awardee Military Personnel, Rajasthan High Court Rejects Claim

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags