Sindhu Chandran vs Union Of India & Ors.
1997 Latest Caselaw 912 Del

ORDER

Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. The first petitioner in this writ petition is Kumari Sindhu Chandran and the second petitioner is her father Shri N. Chandran. The first petitioner passed Class XII examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in the year 1997 with 82.8% marks. Being interested in joining the medical profession she obtained prospectus of various medical institutions. She found that some seats for admission to MBBS/BDS course are reserved for children of paramilitary personnel. Since her father is working as Private Secretary in the Aviation Research Centre (for short ARC) which is one of the four security organisations functioning under the aegis of the Cabinet Secretariat, her father through Annexure P-15 representation dated 18.6.1997 requested the Cabinet Secretariat to supply the requisite application form for consideration of her name for admission to one of the seats in MBBS course reserved for Central Govt. and allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat. However, through Annexure P-16 communication dated 1.7.97 the petitioners were informed that no quota of MBBS/BDS seats had been earmarked for ARC from the central pool. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Cabinet Secretariat to furnish the requisite application form and the refusal of the respondents to earmark any seat in MBBS course for the children of ARC personnel, the petitioners filed this writ petition mainly praying for quashing Annexure P-16 dated 1.7.97 and for a direction to the respondents to consider the name of petitioner No.1 for admission to MBBS course against one of the seats reserved for Central Govt. and allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat.

2. According to the averments in the writ petition, petitioner No.2 joined the Central Govt. service in the year 1976 as Stenographer Grade III. He was given his first appointment in the Special Security Bureau (for short SSB). In 1979 he was transferred from SSB to ARC. In 1981 he was promoted as Stenographer Grade II. In 1984 he was transferred from ARC to Directorate of Accounts, Cabinet Secretariat under the sanctioned strength of SSB. In 1993 he was promoted as Private Secretary. At present he is posted as Private Secretary to the Operations Manager in ARC.

3. It is stated in the petition that there are four security organisations functioning under the aegis of the Cabinet Secretariat. They are the Research and Analysis Wing (for short R & AW), the Special Security Bureau (for short SSB), the Special Frontier Force (for short SFF) and the Aviation Research Centre (for short ARC). R&AW is headed by the Secretary (R) and the other three security organisations are headed by the Director General (Security) [for short DG(S)]. It is also stated that the post to which the second petitioner was initially appointed and the post which he is presently holding are comprised in DG(S) Secretarial Service and that the postings of the personnel belonging to DG(S) Secretarial service are common to all the three organisations.

4. According to the petitioners, Government of India by a general policy have earmarked certain seats in the various medical institutions in the country for certain categories of students and one such category is the children of SSB/SSF/R&AW/ARC personnel. It is stated by the petitioners that out of the seats reserved in the quota for Central Govt. at present four seats have been allocated to the Cabinet secretariat. It is further stated that the children of ARC personnel used to be considered for the seats allotted to the Cabinet Secretariat. In the year 1996 respondent No. 3, Director, ARC by a circular dated 21.6.96 intimated that ARC had not been allotted any MBBS/BDS seats from out of the central pool quota. It is alleged by the petitioners that the said circular issued by respondent No. 3 is contrary to the stand of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It is also stated that the exclusion of the children of ARC personnel from consideration against the seats allotted to the Cabinet Secretariat is arbitrary and discriminatory.

5. The main contention of the petitioners is that the DG(S) Secretarial Service consists of three organisations namely SSB, SFF and ARC and that one organisation cannot be pampered and preferred at the cost of the other. According to the petitioners there is absolutely no reason to exclude wards of ARC personnel from the consideration against the seats allotted to the Cabinet Secretariat when wards of SSB and SFF personnel are included for consideration. It is contended that all the three organisations stand on the same footing and are part of the same set up namely Directorate General (Security).

6. Another contention of the petitioners is that they should not be put to a disadvantageous position merely because the second petitioner at present happens to be posted in ARC. He belongs to DG (S) Secretarial Service and was initially appointed in SSB. He had not opted for posting in ARC and he was transferred to ARC in the exigencies of service and public interest. According to the petitioners, had petitioner No.2 continued in SSB petitioner No.1 would have now been eligible for consideration against the seats allotted to the Cabinet Secretariat. Since petitioner No. 2 can be posted by transfer in any of the three organisations the transfer of petitioner No.2 in the exigencies of service should not result in the denial of a benefit which he would have been otherwise entitled to.

7. It is also contended that according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, ARC is one of the categories entitled to be considered for the seats allotted to the Cabinet Secretariat and that the contrary view taken by respondent No.2 is irrelevant, arbitrary and without authority of law.

8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 it is stated that various states and medical colleges throughout the country have earmarked a small number of seats for allocation to the wards of personnel serving the country at difficult postings with harsh service conditions. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare allocates these seats to the various ministries for making selection of candidates against them. The number of seats allocated to the various ministries vary from year to year depending on the availability of seats from the States and the medical colleges. Some seats are also allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat. The number of seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat during this year is 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Directorate General (Security) comprises three security organisations, namely (i) Special Service Bureau (SSB), (ii) Special Frontier Force (SFF) and (iii) Aviation Research Centre (ARC). Another independent unit called Chief Inspectorate of Armaments (CIOA) is also one of the component units of DG(S). Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) is a separate organisation which does not come under the purview of DG(S) and it functions strictly under the control of Secretary (R). It is further stated in the counter affidavit that DG(S) Secretarial Service is a centralised service covering the three above mentioned security organisations. Though there are innumerable other services in the Directorate General (Security) they have no common cadre with any of the constituent units and they cater to the requirement of the individual organisation only.

9. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare earmarks certain number of seats for MBBS/BDS to various ministries such as Ministry of defense and Ministry of Home Affairs and the Cabinet Secretariat. But it is denied that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare earmarks seats to particular categories or department within the ministries. According to the counter affidavit, Annexure P-3 list issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare simply mentions the categories to whom the seats may be given but need not be necessarily given. It is also stated that the Cabinet Secretariat makes allocation of the seats earmarked to the Cabinet Secretariat among the departments under the aegis of the Cabinet Secretariat. While making such allocation of seats for a particular year the Cabinet Secretariat keeps in mind the peculiar requirements of a service to which the seat is being allocated. Factors such as harshness of service conditions, postings in remote and frontier areas, lack of educational opportunities etc. are taken into account. It is the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretariat to see that all the services functioning under it derive the benefit of this reservation subject to the peculiarities pertaining to each department. It is also claimed that efforts are made to ensure that every department derives the benefit of the reservation and that no department is unduly favoured and no department is unnecessarily left out. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat are further allocated to various organisations under the aegis of Cabinet Secretariat after careful consideration of the factors mentioned earlier. Wards of ARC personnel were considered against reserved seats in the year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1994-95. However, it is stated that unlike the ARC personnel, the personnel of SSB, SFF and R&AW have to work in highly remote and inaccessible border areas which lack basic amenities of life as well as educational facilities. The wards of these personnel are at a distinct disadvantage and cannot compete with others in open competition on equal footing. The cadres/personnel of ARC are not usually deployed in harsh/remote locations and hence they cannot be treated equal to cadre/personnel of SSB, SFF and R&AW. The number of personnel serving in SSB is approximately 34,000 whereas number of personnel serving in ARC is approximately 3300 only. Therefore, it is not possible, nor desirable to allocate a seat for the personnel of ARC every year. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Cabinet Secretariat has done its best to ensure that the wards of ARC personnel are not ignored for the purpose of the reserved seats to medical colleges. The counter affidavit denies the allegation of discrimination and bias against ARC. It is also stated that the non-inclusion of ARC in the year 1997-98 is not due to any bias or mala fides but is based on the fact that ARC has been allocated a number of seats in the preceding years. For the year 1997-98 the view of the Cabinet Secretariat is that the personnel serving in the departments of SSB, SFF and R&AW are in need of the five seats being allocated amongst them only.

10. A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, i.e. the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Govt. of India. According to the averments in the said counter affidavit the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare maintains a central pool of MBBS/BDS seats by seeking contribution of seats from various State Governments and medical institutions. These seats are in turn allotted to certain specified categories of beneficiaries depending upon the number of seats received in the central pool each year. The allotment of seats by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is in some cases subject to certain conditions. As an example, it is pointed out in the counter affidavit that one seat allocated to the Indian Council of Child Welfare is subject to the condition that it should go to the eligible National Awardee who has secured the highest marks in 10+2 examination. Similarly, it is further stated that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide letter dt. 7.8.96 put a condition that out of the quota allotted to Cabinet Secretariat 2 seats are to be given to the Research & Analysis Wing in pursuance of the decision of the Committee of Secretaries communicated vide Cabinet Secretariat's OM No. 6/8/4/95-TS dt. 22.4.96. The inter se distribution of the remaining seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat is done by the Cabinet Secretariat itself.

11. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is stated in the rejoinder that admittedly the DG(S) Secretarial Service is a centralised service covering all the three organisations, namely SSB, SFF and ARC and hence petitioner No.2 should be considered as a part of the Directorate General of Security and not only as a part of the Aviation Research Centre where he is posted at present. It is also stated that petitioner no.2 is presently posted in the ARC just because of the administrative requirements of the DG(S) and there is possibility that in future he might be posted to the other units of DG(S). It is contended that to disentitle the daughter of petitioner No.2 for the benefit of a seat in the central pool quota on the basis of the present posting of petitioner No.2 in the ARC will be arbitrary and discriminatory. It is further stated that the respondents have issued the Circular Instructions No. 97/94 dated 25.11.1994 communicating the decision of the Cabinet Secretariat to the effect that from the academic session 1995-96 onwards the distribution of MBBS seats allotted to Cabinet Secretariat would be as under:-

      R&AW       1 seat
     SSB        2 seats
     SSF        1 seat
 

 According to the petitioners the said circular is contrary to the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit and that the respondents could not have issued such a circular pre-empting any allotment of seat in favour of ARC from 1995-96 onwards. It is also alleged that the Cabinet Secretariat is not following the criteria on the basis of which seats in central pool quota are denied to the wards of ARC personnel.
  

 12. During the arguments in this case, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised a contention that the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 are contrary to the stand taken by the respondents before this court in CWP No. 2693/95. In view of this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the file of CWP 2693/95 was sent for and was perused by me. CWP 2693/95 also was in respect of allocation of seats in MBBS/BDS course reserved for Government of India and allotted to the Cabinet Secretariat. The petitioner therein was Ms. Nidhi Bahuguna, daughter of a SSB personnel.
  

13. The first contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel relates to the authority competent to distribute the seats among the various organisations under the control of the Cabinet Secretariat. According to the learned counsel, in Nidhi Bahuguna's case the respondents took the stand that the distribution of seats among the organisations under the control of the Cabinet Secretariat was to be made by the Ministry of Health but in this case respondents 1 to 3 have taken the stand that inter se distribution is to be made by the Cabinet Secretariat itself. In support of his contention the learned counsel referred to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the reply filed by the respondents in CW 2693/95 and paragraph 5 of the counter statement filed by respondents 1 to 3 in this case. For convenience those paragraphs are extracted below:-

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Reply in Civil Writ Petition No. 2693/95

"1. That there are four different organisations viz. Special Security Bureau (SSB), Special Frontier Force (SFF), Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) and Aviation Research Centre (ARC), which are functioning under the control of Cabinet Secretariat, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is allotting seats to Cabinet Secretariat for admission into MBBS/BDS course each year for the wards of the personnel of these four different organisations, Cabinet Secretariat in turn, allocates the seats to the organisations depending upon the number of seats allotted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare each year, out of Government of India reserve quota. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare have issued guide-lines and instructions for selection of the candidates i.e. wards of the personnel belonging to these four different organisations for allotment of seats in MBBS/BDS course under the control of the Cabinet Secretariat. Each organisation invites application from the eligible wards of personnel working under them every year to consider their cases and recommends names on merit for consideration of the Cabinet Secretariat. Cabinet Secretariat, who is the competent authority for allocating the seats, allocates the seats to respective organisations on merit and thereafter forward the proposal to Ministry of Health recommending the names of the eligible candidates for allocation of seats in the Medical Colleges.

2. That in accordance with the provision/guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide their DO letter no. U/14014/84/86-ME(UG), dated 9.12.1986, copy of which is Annexure R-1, each organisation invites applications from the eligible wards of the personnel working under them. The applications, so received by the individual organisations, are scrutinised to prepare merit list and reserve list by a duly constituted committee consisting of very senior level officers in the respective organisations."

Paragraph 5 of the counter in CW 2686/97

"5. That, the contents of para-5 in so far as relate to prospectus of various medical colleges need no reply as they are matter of record. Cabinet Secretariat makes allocations inter se in the departments under the aegis of the Cabinet Secretariat from the total number of seats which are allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Cabinet Secretariat while making allocations inter se for a particular year keeps in mind peculiar requirements of a service to whom the seat is being allocated. Factors such as harshness of service conditions, postings in remote and frontier areas, lack of basic and or educational opportunities etc., are taken into account. It is the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretariat to see that all the services functioning under it derive the benefit of this reservation subject to the peculiarities pertaining to each department. A list of allocations made from the year 1989 till 1996 is annexed, herewith, and marked as Annexure R-1. A bare perusal of this will show that efforts are made to ensure that every department derives the benefit of this reservation and that no department is unduly favoured and no department is unnecessarily left out."

On a careful perusal of the statements extracted above, I could not find any contradiction as alleged. It is true that according to the reply in CW 2693/95, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is allotting seats to Cabinet Secretariat for admission to MBBS/BDS course each year for the wards of the personnel of four different organisations, namely, SSB, SFF, ARC and R&AW. But it is also stated therein that the Cabinet Secretariat in turn allocates the seats to the organisations depending upon the number of seats allotted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It is further stated that the Cabinet Secretariat who is the competent authority for allocating the seats, allocates the seats to respective organisations on merit. In paragraph 10 of the reply filed in CWP 2693/95 it is specifically stated that the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare allocates seats to the Cabinet Secretariat and not to the individual organisation. The stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit in this case also is the same. The contention of the learned counsel appears to be that since the names of all the four organisations are mentioned by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Cabinet Secretariat is bound to distribute the seats among all the four organisations and cannot leave out one of them. The reply in CWP 2693/95 does not speak of any such restrictions on the Cabinet Secretariat. Even Annexure P-3 list produced by the petitioner in this case contains only the categories of students entitled to be considered for the reserved seats. It does not mean that seats shall be allotted to all the categories. As pointed out in the counter affidavit of respondents 1 to 3, "Annexure P 3 simply mentions the categories to whom the seats may be given but need not be necessarily given."

14. At any rate the contention based on the reply in CWP 2693/95 has no relevance now in view of the counter affidavit filed in this case by respondent No.4, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It is clearly stated therein that the inter se distribution of the seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat is to be done by the Cabinet Secretariat subject to the conditions, if any, stipulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare while allocating the seats to the Cabinet Secretariat. The petitioners could not produce any material to show that while allocating the seats to Cabinet Secretariat, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had stipulated condition that one or more of the seats should be given to the wards of ARC personnel. Hence I have to proceed on the basis that the Cabinet Secretariat is competent to distribute the seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat subject to the conditions if any imposed by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. In the absence of any specific direction from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to allot one or more of the seats to the ARC, it was open to the Cabinet Secretariat not to allot any seat to the ARC if on a proper consideration of all the relevant aspects the Cabinet Secretariat was of the opinion that seats need not be allotted to the ARC.

15. The other contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to the claim of the Aviation Research Centre for seats in the central pool quota. Learned counsel invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the additional affidavit dated 6.11.1995 filed on behalf of the respondents in CWP 2693/95. The said additional affidavit was sworn to by Shri M.L. Chaudhary, Deputy Inspector General, Special Security Bureau, Directorate General of Security, Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India. Paragraph 4 of the said additional affidavit reads thus:-

"4. That with effect from 1989 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare gave the task of allotting the seats to the Cabinet Secretariat. The Cabinet Secretariat, in turn, further allotted the seats amongst the 4 organisation i.e. Research and Analysis Wing, Special Security Bureau and Aviation Research Centre by way of inter se distribution. The need for inclusion of Aviation Research Centre in the Central pool quota was felt since Aviation Research Centre is also having similar service conditions as those of Research & Analysis Wing, Special Security Bureau and Special Frontier Force. The Cabinet Secretariat being the control- ling authority of each of the 4 organisations is required to maintain the parity amongst them in the matter of extending any benefit to the personnel of their respective wards."

Learned counsel then pointed out the averments in the counter affidavit filed in this case on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, that unlike the ARC, SSB, SFF & R&AW personnel have to work in highly remote and inaccessible border areas which lack basic amenities of life as well as educational facilities and that the cadres/personnel of ARC are not usually deployed in harsh/remote locations and hence cannot be treated equal to the cadre/personnel of SSB, SFF and R&AW. It is true that while justifying the action of the Cabinet Secretariat in allotting seats to the ARC in the past, it was stated in paragraph 4 of the additional affidavit dated 6.11.1995 in CW 2693/95 that the ARC was also having similar service conditions as those of R&AW, SSB and SFF. But the expression "service conditions" is vague and general and not sufficiently specific for the context. On the other hand the statements in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit in this case are specific and clear. For convenience paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit in this case is extracted below:-

"7. The contents of paras 9, 10, and 11 are denied to the extent to which they are inconsistent to what is stated below. The seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat are further allocated to various organisations under the aegis of Cabinet Secretariat after careful consideration of the factors which have been stated in para 5 above. Wards of ARC personnel have been considered against reserved seats in the year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1994-95. It is absolutely wrong to say that wards of personnel working in ARC are not considered for these reserved seats. However, it may be stated here that unlike ARC, SSB, SFF and R&AW personnel have to work in highly remote and inaccessible border areas which lack basic amenities of life, as well as educational facilities. The wards of these personnel are at a distinct disadvantage and cannot compete with others in open competition on equal footing. The cadres/personnel of ARC are not usually deployed in harsh/remote locations and hence they cannot be treated equal to cadre/personnel of SSB, SFF and R&AW. Further more, the number of personnel serving in SSB is approximately 34,000 (thirty four thousand) wheres the number of personnel serving in ARC is approximately 3,300 (three thousand three hundred) only. Therefore, it is not possible, nor desirable to allocate a seat every year for the personnel of ARC. However, the Cabinet Secretariat has done its best to ensure that the wards of ARC personnel are not ignored for the purpose of the reserved seats to Medical Colleges."

It is also to be noted that after filing the additional affidavit dated 6.11.1995 in CWP 2693/95 the respondents therein had filed another additional affidavit dated 13.11.1995 sworn to by Shri Ranjit Lal Banerjee, Deputy Director in the Cabinet Secretariat. It is seen from the said affidavit that during 1994-95 the four seats allotted to the Cabinet Secretariat were allocated to R&AW, SSB, SSF and ARC - each of them getting one seat. However, a controversy arose about the allotment of seat to ARC and after consideration at different levels the Secretary (R) finally ordered that for the year 1994-95 the allotment already made would stand but from the next year onwards the distribution of seats allotted to the Cabinet Secretariat would be as follows:-

      R&AW       1 seat
     SSB        2 seats
     SFF        1 seat
 

It was also decided that efforts should be made to get one seat for ARC. The above averments in the additional affidavit. 13.11.1995 are borne out by the relevant files which were placed for my perusal. Obviously it was based on the above decision of the Secretary (R) that the Circular Instructions No. 97/94 dated 25.11.1994 was issued. In view of the subsequent additional affidavit dated 13-11-1995 disclosing the above mentioned decision of the Secretary (R) and in view of the Circular Instructions No. 97/94 dated 25.11.1994 no importance can be given to the statements in the earlier additional affidavit dated 6.11.1995 which is relied on by the counsel for the petitioner. It is also strange that the additional affidavit dated 6-11-1995 did not refer to the orders passed by the Secretary (R) in October 1994 or to the Circular Instructions No.97/94 dated 25-11-1995. In these circumstances I am of the view that the petitioners cannot claim any right on the basis of a vague and general averment in the additional affidavit dated 6-11-1995 filed by the respondents in CWP 2693/95.

16. From the discussion in the preceding paragraphs the following position emerges. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare maintains a central pool of MBBS and BDS seats by seeking contribution of seats from various State Governments and Medical Institutions. These seats in the central pool are for allotment to certain specified categories of beneficiaries. These seats are allocated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the various Ministries and the Cabinet Secretariat for recommending candidates for admission against these seats. The number of seats allocated to the various Ministries and the Cabinet Secretariat will vary from year to year depending upon the number of seats received in the central pool. Ordinarily, the distribution of seats within the Ministry/Cabinet Secretariat is done by the Ministry/Cabinet Secretariat. But the allocation of seats by the Minis-try of Health and Family Welfare is in some cases subject to certain conditions. The Ministry concerned has to select the candidates subject to such conditions if any stipulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. One of the categories of students eligible for allotment of seats in the central pool is the children of paramilitary personnel which include the children of SSB/R&AW/SFF/ARC personnel. In respect of the children of SSB/R&AW/SFF/ARC personnel the authority to whom the applications are to be sent is the Cabinet Secretariat. For the year 1997-98 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has allocated five seats to the Cabinet Secretariat. By a letter dated 7-8-1996 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has put a condition that out of the seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat two seats are to be given to the R&AW in pursuance of the decision of the Committee of Secretaries communicated vide Cabinet Secretariat O.M.No.6/8/4/95-TS dated 22-4-1996. Hence the Cabinet Secretariat is bound to set apart two of the seats for the children of R&AW personnel. The distribution of the remaining seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat can be done by the Cabinet Secretariat itself. Thus the Cabinet Secretariat had to allot two seats to R&AW in view of the letter dated 7-8-1996 from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Cabinet Secretariat decided to distribute the remaining three seats among SSB and SFF. The Cabinet Secretariat is of the view that no seat can be allotted to ARC. When a controversy arose in 1994-95 regarding the distribution of seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat it was decided that from 1995-96 onwards the four seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat would be distributed among R&AW (one seat), SSB (two seats) and SFF (one seat). Though it was decided that efforts should be made to get one more seat for ARC, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has not so far sanctioned any additional seat for allotment to ARC. Even though five seats have been allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat during this year, the allocation is subject to the condition that two of the seats should be given to R&AW. It is seen from the relevant files placed for my perusal that pursuant to the decision of the Secretary (R) in October 1994 that efforts should be made to get one more seat for ARC, the Director ARC had written to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for allotment of seats to ARC. However, the said request was not granted.

17. Admittedly the five seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat are for the children of SSB/R&AW/SFF/ARC personnel. The first question is whether selection of candidates to these seats should be made on the basis of merit (marks obtained in the qualifying examination) from among all the children of SSB/R&AW/SFF/ARC personnel or whether the seats should be distributed among the said four security organisations. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has stipulated that two of the seats should be allotted to the R&AW leaving the remaining three seats for distribution among the other security organisations by the Cabinet Secretariat. The petitioners have not contended that instead of distributing the seats among the security oraginations selection of candidates should have been made to all the five seats on merit from among the children of the four security organisations. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that if the selection of candidates is made on the basis of merit from among the children of all the four security organisations petitioner No.1 does not have any chance for selection because there are more than five applicants who have got more marks in the qualifying examination than the petitioner. Thus, there is no challenge against the system of distribution of the seats among the four security organisations. The only challenge is against the decision of the Cabinet Secretariat not to allot any seat for ARC.

18. Petitioner No.1 has no vested right to be selected for any of the five seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat. She has a right to be considered for selection only if one of the seats is allotted to the children of ARC personnel and she has got the highest marks in the qualifying examination among the children of ARC personnel. Unfortunately for petitioner No.1, during this year no seat has been allotted to the children of ARC personnel. Hence to succeed in the writ petition the petitioners have to show that the respondents were bound to allot one of the seats for ARC or that the decision of the respondents not to allot any seat to ARC is illegal and arbitrary.

19. As pointed out in the counter affidavit of the respondents a central pool of MBBS and BDS seats is maintained for allotment to certain specified categories of beneficiaries such as the children of personnel serving the country at difficult postings with harsh service conditions. It is for the Government of India to decide the categories eligible to be considered for allotment of seats from the central pool. Though the children of paramilitary personnel are included among the categories eligible to be considered for allotment of seats the distribution of seats among the different security organisations like SSB/R&AW/SFF/ARC is left to the discretion of the Cabinet Secretariat subject to conditions, if any, specified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has allocated five seats to the Cabinet Secretariat specifying that two of them shall go to R&AW, leaving the remaining three seats to be allotted by the Cabinet Secretariat. The Cabinet Secretariat in its discretion allotted the three seats among the SSB and SSF leaving out ARC. In these circumstances no question of lack of competence or jurisdiction to make the allotment arises in this case. The petitioners have also not pointed out any violation of any statutory rules or executive/ administrative orders. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the Cabinet Secretariat not to allot any seat to ARC is arbitrary or not.

20. The distribution of the seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat has to be made by the Cabinet Secretariat with due regard to the purpose of maintaining a central pool of seats. The purpose is to allot these seats to specified categories who deserve a special treatment on account of various factors. One of such categories is the children of paramilitary personnel which include the personnel of SSB/R&AW/SFF/ARC. The children of paramilitary personnel are included in the categories eligible for allotment of central pool seats on account of the fact that the paramilitary personnel are serving the country at difficult postings with harsh service conditions. But the nature of difficulties and the intensity of harshness con-fronted by personnel of the different security organisations vary. The number of personnel in each of the security organisations also varies. In view of the differences in the nature of the difficulties with regard to postings and in the harshness of service conditions and also in view of the differences in the number of personnel in each of the security organisations, the four security organisations are not similarly or equally placed and hence they may not be entitled to the same or equal treatment. In consideration of such differences if one or some of the said organisations are preferred to the other in the matter of distribution of seats, such preferential treatment cannot be held to be illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory. In the present case the respondents have decided to distribute the available seats among R&AW, SFF and SSB to the exclusion of ARC. As per the averments in the counter affidavit of Respondents 1 to 3, the above decision was taken by the Cabinet Secretariat after carefully considering factors like the peculiar service conditions, postings in remote and frontier areas and lack of basic facilities and educational opportunities. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that unlike ARC personnel, the personnel of SSB, SFF and R&AW have to work in highly remote and inaccessible border areas which lack basic amenities of life as well as educational facilities. It is further stated that the wards of SSB/SFF/R&AW personnel are at a distinct disadvantage and cannot compete with others in open competition on equal footing. It has been pointed out in the counter affidavit that the cadres/personnel of ARC are not usually deployed in harsh/remote locations and hence they cannot be treated equal to the cadre/personnel of SSB, SFF and R&AW. It has also been pointed out that the number of personnel serving in SSB is approximately 34000 whereas the number of personnel serving in ARC is approximately 3300 only. In view of the above factors, the respondents have taken the view that it is not possible or desirable to allocate a seat for the ARC personnel every year. In the light of the above mentioned specific pleadings in the counter affidavit, the impugned decision of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory or illegal. The respondents are in a better position to assess, understand and appreciate the relative positions and requirements of the four security organisations and in the given circumstances it will not be proper for this Court to substitute its view for that of the respondents assuming that a different view is possible. There is no material to show that the respondents have not properly considered the relevant aspects or that they have considered any irrelevant factor or that they were influenced by any extraneous considerations. Hence the prayer for quashing the communication dated 1-7-1997 by which respondent No.2 refused to supply the application form to the petitioners, is liable to be rejected. Similarly the prayer of the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to consider the name of petitioner No.1 for admission to MBBS course against the seats allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat cannot be granted as she is the ward of ARC personnel and no seat has been allotted to ARC personnel during this year.

21. A seat was allotted to the ARC personnel for 1994-95. Then itself an objection was raised against it. The matter was considered by the Government. As the files reveal, the final decision was taken by the Secretary (R) in the Cabinet Secretariat. The decision was that the allotment made to ARC for 1994-95 would be maintained but from 1995-96 onwards the available four seats would be distributed among the personnel of SSB, SFF and R&AW only. The said decision taken at the level of the Secretary (R) after considering the various aspects of the issue does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so long as the petitioner could not point out any violation of any statutory provisions or any lack of jurisdiction or any bias on the part of the authority/officer who took the decision. By the Circular Instructions No.97/94 dated 25-11-1994 the above mentioned decision of the Secretary (R) was circulated. Since the said decision of the Secretary (R) is not shown to be vitiated by any illegality, the petitioners cannot challenge the Circular Instructions No.97/94 dated 25-11-1994.

22. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners on the ground that petitioner No.2 can be transferred to other security organisations like SSB and that his present posting in ARC should not put him to a disadvantage. While serving in ARC, petitioner No.2 can claim only the benefits available to ARC personnel. Moreover the children of the personnel of security organisations are given the special benefit of reservation of MBBS/BDS seats considering factors such as harshness of service conditions, postings in remote and frontier areas, lack of basic facilities and educational opportunities etc. This implies that the claim for the special benefit is related only to the present posting of the personnel and not to the postings in the past or to the possible postings in the future. The petitioners have no case that the transfer of petitioner No.2 to ARC was deliberately made with the mala fide intention of excluding petitioner No.1 from the list of candidates entitled to be considered for selection.

23. While deciding to distribute the four seats only among SSB, SSF and R&AW from the year 1995-96 onwards, it was also decided that efforts should be made to get one seat for ARC. The relevant files show that subsequent to the said decision, the Director, ARC by a D.O. letter dated 16-12-1994 requested the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to reserve at least 2 seats for ARC. But the said request was turned down by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare through a letter dated 3-1-1995 observing that the Cabinet Secretariat had been allotting one of the four seats to ARC. It would appear that the earlier mentioned decision of the

Secretary (R) was not specifically brought to the notice of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The files further disclose that the Director, ARC has again written a letter dated 17-6-1997 to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare but a final decision has not been communicated to the Director ARC. Having regard to the entire circumstances of the case I am of the view that the question of allotting at least one seat to the ARC in future deserves a fresh consideration by both the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Cabinet Secretariat. Since it is too late to under-take such a fresh consideration for this year and since the process of selection of candidates had commenced on the basis of the decision in force which is not shown to be illegal, it is not just or proper to interfere with the selection of candidates for this year.

24. For the reasons stated above, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.