Delhi High Court
Roshni Raman vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 5 September, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 31.08.2017
Pronounced on: 05.09.2017
+ LPA 568/2017 & CM Nos.30960-30961/2017
ROSHNI RAMAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rachit Mehrotra and Mr. I. S.
Singh, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for
respondent-UOI.
Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal and Mr. Prang Newmai,
Advs. for respondent-Delhi University.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
1. The appellant preferred a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.7183/2017) which
is pending on the file of this Court. She was an applicant in the "CW
Category" and sought admission on the basis of a priority, which the
University of Delhi ("the University") had published to give effect to the
Union, Ministry of Defence (MoD) circular of 19.05.2017. In short, the
preference is by way of a reservation of wards/widows of five categories of
personnel who are either killed in action or disabled and boarded out from
service.
2. The petitioner had applied for the LL.B. course; she contended that
consistently the respondent/University had, with respect to other courses,
especially in the Medical category (MBBS, BDS/MD, etc.) and also in the
Ayurveda and Unani disciplines, clearly spelt out that the reservation
benefits were available to widows, wards and/or wives of such defence
personnel.
3. The Single Judge by her impugned order of 21.08.2017 issued notice
but refused to grant any interim order. The appellant therefore contends that
the refusal of interim order would, in effect, irreparably prejudice her
because no seats would be left to be filled in the eventuality of her being
granted final relief.
4. The appellant's counsel reiterated the submissions made in support of
the appeal as well as the writ petition and pointedly referred to all the
circulars/brochures, for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and
2016-17 which read as follows:-
"Five Percent (5%) seats are reserved on horizontal basis for
the candidate belonging to Children, Widow and Wives of
Armed and Para Military Personnel (CWWAPP) category."
5. Learned counsel also relied upon extracts of the website of the Board,
indicating the reservation/preference to various categories. The relevant
extract of the website is as follows:-
"3. Admission into MBBS/BDS Colleges. At present
(approx 25 to 27 seats) in MBBS and (one seat) in BDS (subject
to allotment of seats by Min of Health) as Central Govt.
nominee are available through KSB for wives/widows and
wards of categories of Defence personnel in the following order
of priority:-
(a) Killed in action.
(b) Disabled in action and boarded out from service
with disability attributable to Military Service.
(c) Died while in service with death attributable to
Military Service.
(d) Disabled in service and boarded out with disability
attributable to military service.
(e) Gallantry Award/Distinguished Service Award
winners (does not include Service Medals)."
6. This Court had heard the counsel for the parties including the Delhi
University and the Kendriya Sainik Board. The Board was directed to
produce the relevant records, which it did. A consideration of the record
would reveal that even though in the website the expression "wife/widow"
has been used in a loose and interchangeable manner, the information
brochures in every case have taken their own course. Furthermore, when the
policy was first formulated in 1994, its benefits were confined to
widow/wards. Likewise, the same approach has been adopted by the Delhi
University, which has followed the 19.05.2000 circular in the Information
Brochure for admission to the Academic Year 2017-18.
7. The use of the expression "ward" - according to various dictionaries
signifies someone under the care and protection of an adult. What emerges
from a reading of the Black's Dictionary, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of
Words and Phrases is that the term "ward" presupposes someone under the
protection or guardianship of another. In law, the relationship acquires a
fiduciary character where the ward depends on certain decisions of the
guardian.
8. In these circumstances, having regard to the state of the record, the
Court is of the opinion that prima facie the refusal to grant interim relied by
way of a direction to admit the writ petitioner or in some other manner
protect her interest, cannot be characterized as unreasonable or as a palpable
error. The policy relied upon by the writ petitioner is confined to admission
to Medical, Unani and Ayurveda courses and Dental courses. In the
circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been a consistent pattern of
granting the benefits to wives; equally it cannot be asserted that
independently the expression "ward" prima facie extends to the inclusion of
the spousal relationship.
9. For the above reasons, no interference with the impugned order is
called for. However, nothing stated in this order will preclude the
consideration of the appellant's case on its merits. All rights and
contentions of the parties are reserved.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
R.K. GAUBA, J
SEPTEMBER 05, 2017
kks
