Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 September, 2010
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on : 10th September, 2010
% Judgment Pronounced on: 13th September, 2010
+ LPA 582/2009
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through Mr.S.M.Dalal, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr.R.Balasubramanium, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
DIPAK MISRA, CJ
In this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the
challenge is to the order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No. 10869/2009.
2. The brief resume of facts are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter
referred to as „the appellant‟) invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to treat the disability certificate of his father,
Ex. GMR Chiranji Lal, as a valid certificate for the purpose of admission to
the MBBS course for the academic session 2009-2010. As pleaded, the
father of the petitioner had applied to Kendriya Sainik Board, West Block
IV, R.K. Puram, New Delhi for a reserved seat in Medical/Dental Colleges
for the year 2009-2010 but eventually, the claim of the petitioner was
rejected. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the father of
the petitioner comes under priority IV being disabled in service and boarded
out with disability attributable to military service, but the authorities
concerned did not illegally extend the benefit.
3. The learned Single Judge referred to the Scheme which contained
Form A-4 and the Certificate issued by the Zila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari and
came to hold that the father of the appellant did not meet the eligibility
criteria inasmuch as he did not satisfy the criteria laid down in Form A-4
which was the Form to be filled.
4. We have heard Mr. S.M. Dalal, learned counsel for the appellant, and
Mr. R. Balasubramanyam, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The singular question that arises for consideration is whether the
appellant was entitled to be included to the admission to MBBS course
under the reserved quota meant for disabled persons in service. Mr. Dalal
has invited our attention to the communication dated 3rd June, 1994 from the
Additional Secretary, Department of Defence. In paragraph 2 of the said
communication, it is mentioned as follows:
"2. Though education is a State subject and Universities are
autonomous bodies standardization of preference for admission in
Defence quota is desirable to bring about uniformity in the
States/UTs. For the purpose of standardization, the following
prioritization is recommended:-
Priority-I: Widows/wards of Defence personnel killed in
action.
Priority-II: Wards of serving personnel and ex-Servicemen
disabled in action.
Priority-III: Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died in
peace time with death attributable to military
service.
Priority-IV: Wards of ex-Servicemen disabled in peace time with
disability attributable to military service.
Priority-V: Wards of ex-Servicemen and serving personnel who
are in receipt of Gallantry Awards:-
(1) Param Vir Chakra
(2) Ashok Chakra
(3) Sarvottam Yudh Seva Medal
(4) Maha Vir Chakra
(5) Kirti Chakra
(6) Uttam Yudh Seva Medal
(7) Vir Chakra
(8) Shaurya Chakra
(9) Yudh Seva Medal
(10) Sena, Nau Sena, Vayusena Medal
(11) Mention-in-Despatches
Priority-VI: Wards of ex-Servicemen.
Priority-VII: Wards of serving personnel."
6. Relying on the same, it is contended by Mr. Dalal that the Scheme
only provided for defence personnel disabled in peace time with disability
attributable to military service and the father of the appellant falls in the
same category.
7. Mr. Balasubramanyam, learned counsel for the respondent, has
invited our attention to the scheme which has been brought on record. It is
urged by him that what is placed reliance upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant is an internal correspondence but the Scheme that came into
existence is different. He has drawn our attention to the scheme which,
under the general instructions in paragraph 1(t), reads as follows:
"(t) The Priority to which candidate belongs out of the ones listed
below for filling the application form if the father/husband of the
candidate is/was.
PRIORITY FORM TO BE FILLED
(i) Killed in action 1 A-1
(ii) Disabled in action 2 A-2
And boarded out from
service with disability
attributable to mil service
(iii) Died while in service 3 A-3
and death attributable
to mil service
(iv) Disabled in service 4 A-4
and boarded out with
disability attributable to
mil service
(v) Gallantry Award/other 5 A-5
Award Winners
8. The Form A-4 is to be filled up by the sons/daughters of personnel
disabled in service who have been boarded out with disability attributable to
military service. The said Form clearly stipulates grant of pension relating
to disability element. The Form that was issued in favour of the petitioner
reads as follows:
Form A-4
(To be filled in by sons/daughters of personnel disabled in service
and who has been boarded out with disability attributable to
military service).
Priority 4
This is to certify that Mr.Sanjay Kumar is son of No.14460040 P
Rank GNR DMT Chiranji Lal of Unit/Corps/Service Regiment of
Artillery who was disabled in service on 24 July 1987 and boarded
out from service on 31 Jan 1991 and the disability was Gireater
Tuberusity (Lt) Humerus 20% which was accepted as attributable
to Military Service by CDA(P) Allahabad. An attested photocopy
of supporting documents relating to the disability attributable to
Military Service along with the release order issued by concerned
record office/CDA(P) Allahabad, Govt. of India letter/copy of
latest PPO stating %age of disability granted and disability element
awarded for life is attached.
Sd/-
Office Seal Zila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari
Behror Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
Secretary RSB/ZSB)
Verified
Office Seal Sd/-
Major
Senior Record officer
Artillery Records"
9. It is trite law that when Form A-4 has been a part of the Scheme, the
same has to be followed absolutely religiously. The submission of Mr. Dalal
is that there is decrease of disability and the pension is not granted on that
score. Be that as it may, we find that the Scheme postulates that unless the
disability pension is awarded to such a person as an element of disability and
which is also for life, the son or daughter of such a person is not eligible for
a reserved seat for medical admission. On a perusal of the documents, it is
quite vivid that the father of the appellant did not satisfy the said criterion.
Thus, he cannot claim to avail the benefit of reserved quota and, therefore,
the denial of the same to him cannot be found fault with.
10. In view of our preceding analysis, we do not find any error in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the appeal stands
dismissed without any order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
pk
