The Rajasthan High Court while rejecting the claim of a ward of Gallantry Awardee Para Military Personnel for admission under the reserved category observed that policy matters cannot be overreached by judicial review.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging the new policy of the government excluding wards of Para Military against 1% quota for wards of ex-servicemen.

The single-bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, "......the fact that Military and Paramilitary forces are on different footing and policy makers have maintained their view and application of mind in its letter and spirit, this Court under the scope of judicial review cannot interfere and specifically spell out non-consideration of wards of Gallantry awardee of Para-Military personnel as a special clause of reservation over and above Priority list I-III and for the aforestated reasons, no merit is made out in favour of the petitioner as per the present petition."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rajendra Soni while the Respondent was represented by AAG Vigyan Shah.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that taking a contrary approach from the past practices (as per the admissions under NEET-UG-2024), a discrimination was caused qua the wards of Para-Military Personnel, wherein Ministry of Home Affairs has maintained 9 categories of priority crafted specifically qua wards of Gallantry awardee Military personnel putting them on a higher pedestal, perhaps qua wards of Gallantry awardee Para-military Personnel, only three categories of priority are made out, howsoever under the latter Category, no priority qua wards of Gallantry awardee is maintained.

It was further submitted that a clarification was issued by the Director of Sainik Kalyan Board, Rajasthan whereby directions were given for considering the petitioners’ candidature under category 2 and 3 of the said priority list pertaining to wards of Para-Military personnel, reflecting an apparent and clear intention of the competent Authority vide which the petitioner should be granted benefit qua his claim.

Furthermore, it was submitted that undue hardship and grave discrimination is caused to the petitioner by not grating him reservation qua being ward of Gallantry awardee Para-military personnel akin to the information booklet containing priority list for NEET UG 2021. It was contended that a discriminatory approach was adopted by treating reservations qua wards of Military and Para-military categories in a differential manner.

To buttress his submission, he also cited Supreme Court ruling in AIR 2008 SC 3148 titled as Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.; AIR 1983 SC 130 titled as D. S. Nakara & Ors. versus Union of India and AIR 1989 SC 903, titled as Dipak Sibal versus Punjab University and Another.

The Court noted that the State Counseling Board have to act upon the directions of competent authority under CISF/CAPF or ParaMilitary forces and as per advisory letter dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure- AA/2), wherein only three categories of priority as per given sequence were directed to be contained in the information booklet qua wards of Para-Military personnel.

"....the aforestated categories are not supposed to be distributed but directed to be maintained in its letter and spirit vide letter dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure AA/3), whereby the Office of Deputy Inspector General has specified that the candidature of the present petitioner cannot be considered above and other than the priorities enlisted under category I-III," the court observed.

The Court agreed with the contention of the respondents that they are acting as per the prescribed policy and the appropriate sequence of priority, specifying concerned wards of Military and Para-Military personnel, wherein no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

".......it is noted that qua wards of Paramilitary personnel three categories of priority are formulated, wherein qua the wards of Gallantry awardee Para-Military personnel, no separate category is spelled out. Furthermore, upon perusal of the available records, it is deduced that no prima facie malafide is caused to the petitioner, other than the argument that qua wards of Military personnel, 9 clauses of priority list are maintained inclusive of the specific clause regarding wards of Gallantry awardee Military personnel," the Court observed.

The Court was of the view that it cannot examine policy issue under judicial review.

"......upon considering the fact that Military and Paramilitary forces are on different footing and policy makers have maintained their view and application of mind in its letter and spirit, this Court under the scope of judicial review cannot interfere and specifically spell out non-consideration of wards of Gallantry awardee of Para-Military personnel as a special clause of reservation over and above Priority list I-III and for the aforestated reasons, no merit is made out in favour of the petitioner as per the present petition," the Court observed.

While placing reliance upon the dictum enunciated in the case of Asha (Supra), it can be opined that the merit should be the sole criteria in the professional courses like medical and the same should not be disturbed, the court further observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Kailash Choudhary vs. Chairman, Neet (U.g.) (2024:RJ-JP:47807}

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Rajendra Soni, Advocate

Respondent- AAG Vigyan Shah, Advocate Yash Joshi, Advocate Angad Mirdha, Advocate Anand Sharma, Advocate Viswas Saini, Advocate M. S. Raghav

Click here to read/ download Judgement:












Rajasthan High CourtReservationMBBSNEETNEET PGNEET UG

Sheetal Joon