Rajasthan High Court Denies Admission Claim for MBBS from Gallantry Awardee’s Dependent in Reserved Category.
The Rajasthan High Court denied a request from the child of a Gallantry Awardee in the Para Military for admission under a reserved category. The court stated that policy decisions cannot be changed by judicial review. This decision came while reviewing a Writ Petition that challenged a new government policy which excluded Para Military wards from the 1% quota for ex-servicemen’s children. Justice Sameer Jain noted that Military and Paramilitary forces are treated differently, and the policymakers have consistently upheld this distinction. Therefore, the court cannot intervene to add a special reservation for the wards of Gallantry awardees from the Para Military, and the petition did not have merit.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rajendra Soni, while the respondent was represented by AAG Vigyan Shah. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the new approach differs from past practices regarding NEET-UG-2024 admissions, leading to discrimination against Para-Military wards. The Ministry of Home Affairs has established nine priority categories for the children of Gallantry awardee Military personnel, placing them at a higher level. In contrast, only three priority categories exist for the wards of Gallantry awardee Para-Military personnel, and none of these categories prioritize them.
It was also mentioned that the Director of the Sainik Kalyan Board in Rajasthan issued a clarification directing that the petitioners’ applications be considered under categories 2 and 3 of the priority list for the children of Para-Military personnel. This shows a clear intention from the authority to support the petitioner’s claim. Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner faces unfair hardship and discrimination by not receiving reservation benefits as a child of a Gallantry awardee in the Para-Military, similar to what is outlined in the NEET UG 2021 information booklet. It was claimed that there is a biased approach in treating reservations for the children of Military and Para-Military personnel differently.
To support this argument, the petitioner referenced several Supreme Court cases: AIR 2008 SC 3148 (Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.), AIR 1983 SC 130 (D. S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India), and AIR 1989 SC 903 (Dipak Sibal vs. Punjab University and Another). The Court noted that the State Counseling Board must follow the directions from the competent authority regarding CISF/CAPF or Para-Military forces. According to an advisory letter dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure-AA/2), only three categories of priority should be included in the information booklet for the children of Para-Military personnel. The court pointed out that these categories should not be mixed but should be maintained as specified in a letter dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure AA/3), which stated that the current petitioner’s application cannot be considered outside the priorities listed in categories I-III.
The Court agreed with the respondents that they are following the set policy and the correct order of priority for the children of Military and Para-Military personnel, and that the petitioner has not been harmed. It was noted that there are three priority categories for the children of Para-Military personnel, but there is no separate category for the children of Gallantry awardees. After reviewing the records, the Court found no evidence of bad faith against the petitioner, aside from the fact that there are nine priority clauses for Military personnel, which includes a specific clause for Gallantry awardees.
The Court stated that it cannot review policy matters through judicial means. It acknowledged that Military and Para-Military forces are treated differently and that policymakers have consistently applied their views. Therefore, the Court cannot create a special reservation for the children of Gallantry awardees from the Para-Military forces beyond the existing priority lists. For these reasons, the Court found no merit in the petitioner’s case. The Court also emphasized that merit should be the only criterion for professional courses like medicine and should not be altered. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Kailash Choudhary vs. Chairman, Neet (U.g.) (2024:RJ-JP:47807}
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Rajendra Soni
Respondent: AAG Vigyan Shah, Advocate Yash Joshi, Advocate Angad Mirdha, Advocate Anand Sharma, Advocate Viswas Saini, Advocate M. S. Raghav
