Delhi High Court
Ketan Kumar & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 12 November, 2021
$~33 (2021 Cause List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- November 12, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 10411/2021
KETAN KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Kumar Verma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr.
Neeraj Kumar and Mr. Vedansh
Anand, Advs. for R-1 and R-2.
Mr. T. Singhdev alongwith Mr.
Bhanu Gulati, Advs. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (Oral)
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
video conferencing.
CM APPL. 39997/2021 (for early hearing) in W.P.(C) 10411/2021
1. This is an application on behalf of the petitioners for early
hearing of the writ petition.
2. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed, and the writ
petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for
the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:15.11.2021
W.P.(C) 10411/2021
1. The petitioner No. 1 is the son of an ex-serviceman, i.e. the
petitioner No. 2 herein. He aspires to gain admission in a medical
course and seeks issuance of a "CW certificate" by the respondent
No.1-Union of India ["the Union"] and the respondent No. 2-Kendriya
Sainik Board ["KSB"]. The CW certificate is issued to children and
wards of Armed Forces personnel, for whom seats are reserved or
priority admissions are available in various educational institutions.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the KSB has, by way of
a communication dated 17.12.2020, declined to issue a CW certificate
to the petitioner No. 1 as he is more than 25 years old. The impugned
communication records that the petitioner No. 1 cannot be termed as a
"dependent" of the petitioner No. 2 beyond the age of 25 years.
3. Mr. Puneet Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that the decision of the Union and the KSB to this extent is
arbitrary and unreasonable as the petitioner No. 1 also belongs to the
Other Backward Classes ["OBC"] category, for which the respondent
No. 3-National Medical Commission ["NMC"] has prescribed the
maximum age of 30 years for application to medical courses. (For
general category candidates, in contrast, the maximum permitted age
is 25 years.) In the face of such a stipulation by the NMC, Mr. Verma
submits that it is wholly irrational for a person, who is admittedly the
ward of an ex-serviceman, to be denied the benefit of CW category
reservation only because he has crossed the age of 25 years.
4. Mr. Verma has drawn my attention to an extract of an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:15.11.2021
Information Bulletin issued by the University of Delhi (Annexure P-4
to the writ petition), which shows that 5% reservation is available for
CW category candidates, subject to their having an educational
concession certificate issued by the enumerated authorities, which
include the KSB and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India. The order of preference in which candidates would be
considered is also enumerated in the aforesaid extract, in which the
petitioner No. 1 falls within Category V- "Wards of serving ex-
servicemen personnel including personnel of police forces who are in
receipt of Gallantry Awards". Mr. Verma submits that the KSB has
issued a notification wherein applications were invited for admission
to medical colleges for sons/daughters/widows of Armed Forces
personnel. In the instructions which accompanied the said notification,
Mr. Verma relies upon Clause 2(p), which states as follows:-
"Instructions given above are to be used as guidelines
only, these are subject to change without notice as per
Medical Council of India/Ministry of Health rulings
issued from time to time."
5. Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, learned counsel for the Union and the
KSB, submits that the Union has fixed the upper age limit of 25 years
for issuance of educational concession certificates for children and
wards of Armed Forces personnel as a policy decision, which does not
warrant interference of the writ court. He submits that such a decision
is consistent with the definition of "Dependent" contained in the
notification dated 13.04.1993, which concerns the establishment of the
Armed Forces Flag Day Fund.
6. Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for the NMC, submits that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:15.11.2021
although the NMC has relaxed the age limit for admission as far as
OBC category candidates are concerned, this does not imply a
mandate upon the Government to extend the same age limit in respect
of CW category reservations.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the decision taken by the respondents is a policy decision, which
does not display any such arbitrariness or unreasonableness as to merit
the intervention of the writ court. Reservation in respect of OBC
category students and CW category students are separate categories of
reservations. The age limit fixed by the NMC for OBC candidates is
30 years and that remains available to the petitioner No. 1. As
recorded above, the NMC itself does not suggest that the same age
limit must be applied to CW category candidates also.
8. The petitioner No. 1 effectively seeks a direction that the benefit
available to him in the CW category must also be extended until the
age of 30 years. These benefits are intended to benefit the families of
ex-servicemen. The fixation of an upper age limit until which the
benefit would be available is, in my view, not irrational. For the
Government to take a decision that the benefit to servicemen's
families would be maximised if candidates avail of the benefits at an
earlier age is within the realm of a policy decision. The interference of
the writ court with such policies is extremely limited, as reiterated by
the Supreme Court in the recent decision in Rachna and Others vs.
Union of India and Another (2021) 5 SCC 638 in the following terms:
43. It is the settled principle of law that policy decisions are
open for judicial review by this Court for a very limited
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:15.11.2021
purpose and this Court can interfere into the realm of public
policy so framed if it is either absolutely capricious, totally
arbitrary or not informed of reasons and has been considered
by this Court in Union of India v. M. Selvakumar (2017) 3 SCC
504. The relevant portion is as under:--
"47. There is one more reason due to which we are unable
to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court and
Delhi High Court. The horizontal reservation and relaxation
for Physically Handicapped Category candidates for Civil
Services Examination, is a matter of Governmental policy and
the Government after considering the relevant materials has
extended relaxation and concessions to the Physically
Handicapped candidates belonging to the Reserved Category
as well as General Category. It is not in the domain of the
courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular
public policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy
could be evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy
framed is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons,
or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of Article
14 of the Constitution.
(Emphasis supplied.)"
9. The fixation of a cut off age does sometimes occasion hardship
upon a particular category of applicants or candidates. Although there
is some randomness in the fixation of a cut off age, by its very nature,
that is not sufficient to characterize it as an arbitrary or unreasonable
decision. Reference may be made in this connection to the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar vs. High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad and Another (2019) SCC Online SC 254
(paragraph 23): 2019 (2) SCALE 752:
"23. The legal principles which govern the determination of
a cut-off date are well settled. The power to fix a cut-
off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control
which an authority exercises over the selection process. A
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:15.11.2021
certain degree of arbitrariness may appear on the face of
any cut-off or age limit which is prescribed, since a
candidate on the wrong side of the line may stand excluded
as a consequence. That, however, is no reason to hold that
the cut-off which is prescribed, is arbitrary. In order to
declare that a cut-off is arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be
of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that it has been
fixed without any rational basis whatsoever or is manifestly
unreasonable so as to lead to a conclusion of a violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution."
10. For the reasons aforesaid, I am unable to accept the case made
out by the petitioners. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, but
without any order as to costs.
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
„vp‟
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:15.11.2021
