The Delhi High Court has ruled that wards of armed forces personnel who suffered disability during military operations but continued in service until normal retirement are not entitled to Priority-II reservation under the Defence quota.
Justice Vikas Mahajan held that Priority-II applies only to wards of personnel who were invalided out of service due to disability attributable to military service.
Scope of Priority-II Reservation Explained
The Court clarified that Priority-II reservation applies only in cases where armed forces personnel were boarded out of service after invaliding proceedings conducted by the Invaliding Medical Board (IMB).
Personnel who sustained disability but remained in service, completed their full tenure, or opted for premature voluntary retirement do not fall under Priority-II. Such candidates can only seek consideration under Priority-VI of the Defence quota.
Purpose Behind the Reservation Policy
The Bench observed that Priority-II carries significant weight under the Defence quota. It ranks immediately below the category of personnel killed in action while allocating seats in universities and specialised educational courses.
Lower categories, including Priority-IV, cover wards of personnel disabled in non-battle circumstances and therefore attract lesser preference.
Facts of the Case
The ruling arose from a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking admission under the Defence quota. The petitioner claimed Priority-II status on the ground that his father had sustained a battle-related disability during service.
However, the record showed that the officer continued in service despite the disability, completed his prescribed tenure, and retired in the normal course.
Article 14 Challenge Rejected
The petitioner argued that denial of Priority-II status violated Article 14 of the Constitution. He claimed that the policy discriminated between similarly placed wards of battle-casualty personnel.
The Court rejected the contention. It held that families of personnel invalided out due to disability are more likely to face financial hardship. In contrast, personnel who continue in service receive full salary, promotions, and service benefits.
Policy Classification Found Rational
The High Court held that the distinction under the Defence quota policy has a rational basis and bears a clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
It further emphasised that reservation priorities fall within the domain of policy. Courts should not interfere unless a policy is manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Upholding the 2018 Defence Quota Policy, the Court concluded that authorities had correctly placed the petitioner in a lower priority category.
Case Details
Case Title: Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. Union of India
Appearances:
- For the Petitioners:
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Disha Joshi, Mr. Shashank Jain and Ms. Asmita Singh, Advocates - For Respondents 1 to 3:
Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Standing Panel Counsel, with Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav and Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocates - For Respondent 4:
Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr. C. Sanal Nambiar, Ms. Chetna Singh and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Advocates
