Reservation Request for Wards of Gallantry Award Winner Military Personnel, Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Request

Single Judge Bench Justice Sameer Jain of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition challenging the policy of not including wards of Valor Award recipients in reservation categories, contrary to the policy in force in 2021. The court said it could not expand its powers of judicial review because policymakers used their minds when listing the categories.

Background

The petitioners’ father was a Courage Award winner. He received his award on 11.05.2024. According to the NEET UG-2021 information bulletin, priority would be given to children of Gallantry-awarded Military Personnel and Para-Military Personnel in admission to MBBS/BDS courses instead of 1% quota for wards of ex-servicemen. For admissions under NEET-UG-2024, the opposite approach was adopted and the Ministry of Internal Affairs maintained 9 priority categories. When placing Military personnel who received Gallantry awards on a pedestal, three priority categories were identified for Para-Military Personnel wards, with no priority given to the wards of Gallantry awardees.

Pursuant to the clarification order dated 22.08.2024, the Director, Board of Directors, Sainik Kalyan, Rajasthan, issued directions that the Petitioner be considered under categories 2 and 3 of the said priority list of Para-Military personnel wards.

Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner has been adversely affected and undue hardship has been caused to him as he has not been given priority as per the information booklet containing the NEET UG 2021 priority list, which is the ward of Gallantry award winner Para. -military personnel.

Describing this as ‘discriminatory’, the Lawyer stated that the Defendants have a different approach to the wards in the Military and Para-military categories regarding their reservations.

In making these allegations, Counsel relied on: Satyawati Sharma Vs. India and Anr. Union; AIR 1983 SC 130, DS Nakara & Ors. against the Union of India And Dipak Sibal vs Punjab University and Another.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s Counsel claimed that the information booklet regarding NEET UG 2024 was prepared in accordance with the instructions given in the letter dated 06.06.2024. According to the booklet, only three categories namely Priority-I, Priority-II and Priority-III have been created by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Director General of Central Industrial Security Forces. A Letter was also published on 01.10.2024 explaining that no other priority or reservation category other than the ones mentioned can be maintained.

It was further stated that formulation of any policy regarding Para-military personnel is under the purview of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and similarly policies for Military personnel wards are also under the purview of the Ministry of Defence. The lawyer claimed that these choices were made after necessary evaluation, after eliminating any arbitrariness or illegality.

trusting more Asha Vs. Pt. BD Sharma University of Health Sciences and Ors., The lawyer stated that 1% of the reservation is extended to Para-Military personnel and meritorious Military personnel wards and there is nothing against this rule within the scope of professional courses.

The lawyer informed the Court that the post-admission counseling process is over and even the seats have been allocated to the candidates. It was stated that there should be no intervention by the Court at this stage.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the matter was to determine the candidacy of the petitioners within the 1% quota allotted to wards of Military and Para-Military personnel who received Gallantry award for admission under NEET UG-2024 examination.

After reviewing the priority order for Defense personnel of Military and Paramilitary forces as per information bulletin for NEET UG-2024, the Court observed that the State Advisory Board should follow the instructions of the competent authority under CISF/CAPF or Paramilitary forces. and advisory letter dated 06.06.2024. According to the advisory, only three priority categories were included in the information booklet as follows:

“(i) Priority-I: Wards/Widows of Those Killed in Action (i.e. those eligible for LPA-Liberalized Pension Awards)

(ii) Priority-II: Wards/widows/spouses of personnel permanently disabled during operation and discharged from service.

(iii) Priority-III: Wards of all serving and retired personnel.”

Observing that the Deputy Inspector General had stated that the candidacy of the present petitioner cannot be considered in any category other than the three registered categories, the Court held that the same should be followed in letter and spirit.

The Court considered the view of the Respondent Counsel that “all recipients of gallantry medals, including those from Para-Military/Police Forces, are equally entitled to benefit from reservation under the intended category, without any discrimination on the basis of wards of Military personnel.” and Para-military personnel. It held that although there was no special category for wards of Para-Military personnel receiving Gallantry awards, prima facie malfeasance was not conferred on the petitioner.

Moreover, considering that the policy makers implemented their ideas in letter and spirit, the Court held that it could not interfere with the Gallantry awardee and create a category for Para-Military personnel as a special reservation clause.

In view of these observations, the Petition is dismissed.

Case Title: Kailash Choudhary vs President Neet

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Soni

Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. Yash Joshi and Mr. Viswas Saini for AAG Mr. Angad Mirdha, Mr. Anand Sharma, Mr. MS Raghav

Click Here to Download the Decision/Decision