Delhi High Court
Utkarsh Rai S/O Sh. Uttam Kumar Rai vs Delhi Technological University ... on 27 January, 2022
$~22 (2022 Cause List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:27.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 13517/2021 & CM APPL. 42619/2021
UTKARSH RAI S/O SH. UTTAM KUMAR RAI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rabin Majumder,
Mr. Kritendra Tiwari, and
Ms. Akansha Srivastava,
Advocates.
versus
DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel, GNCTD with
Mrs. Tania Ahlawat,
Mr. Nitesh Kr. Singh,
Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocates
for R-1/DTU .
Mr. Prakash Kumar, CGSC for
R-2/UOI (9810164350).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
%
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
video conferencing.
1. The petitioner was a candidate for admission to the respondent
No.1- Delhi Technological University ["the University"] for the
B.Tech course in the 2021-22 session. The petitioner applied in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
Children and Wards of Defence Personnel category ["the CW
category"]. His grievance is that he was denied admission because he
was considered in Priority-VI in the CW category, instead of Priority-
IV, to which he claimed entitlement. According to the petitioner, he
would have been admitted to the University, if he had been considered
in Priority-IV.
Facts
2. The University invited applications for the course in question by
way of an Admission Brochure, which has been placed on record. It
provides for a reservation of 5% of total seats for the CW category,
and lays down various priorities within the CW category, in which
candidates would be considered.
3. Priorities-IV and VI, with which we are concerned in this
petition, read as follows: -
"Priority IV - Wards of disabled in service and
boarded/invalid out with disability attributable to
military service. Required Certificate (Proof in Original):
a. Discharge Certificate with remarks - medical
boarded out, disability attributable to military service.
b. PPO
c. Education Concession Certificate/ I-Card issued
by Zila/Rajya/Kendriya Sainik Board.
Priority VI - Wards of Ex-Servicemen Required
Certificate (Proof in Original):
a. Discharge Certificate/ Service Particulars
b. Original ex-servicemen Identity Card
c. PPO
d. Education Concession Certificate/ESM/Widow I-
Card issued by Zila/Rajya/Kendriya Sainik Board."
4. After enumerating the various priorities under the CW category,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
and the list of documents required to be submitted, the Admission
Brochure contains the following notes: -
"NOTE:
A statement to the effect that 'the death/disability is
attributed to military service' is required to be included
in the certificate for Priority III & IV.
THE FINAL PRIORITY WILL BE SUBJECT TO
SCRUTINY BY PANEL OF DEFENCE EXPERTS AT
THE TIME OF DOCUMENT VERIFICATION."
5. The petitioner applied in the CW category and claimed
placement in Category IV. He relied upon his father's service in the
Indian Air Force. It is undisputed that the petitioner's father entered
service in the Air Force on 18.11.1996, and was discharged from
service on 30.11.2016. He was subjected to a Release Medical Board
["RMB"] at the time of discharge, and is in receipt of disability
pension on the ground of a disability attributable to military service.
6. The petitioner's case was considered by the University in the
CW category, but not in Priority-IV. According to the University, the
concerned committee approved the placement of the petitioner only in
Priority-VI. The petitioner was unable to secure admission on this
basis. His representations to the University to reconsider this decision
have not been acceded to, leading to the present writ petition.
Submissions
7. Mr. Rabin Majumder and Mr. Kritendra Tiwari, learned counsel
for the petitioner, submit that the petitioner falls within Priority-IV, as
his father was boarded out of service with disability attributable to
military service. They rely upon a Disability Medical Certificate and
proceedings of the RMB, which demonstrate that the petitioner's
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
father was found to have suffered three injuries - (a) Fracture Patella
(RT)(OPTD)(Old) on 24.05.2000, which was held to be attributable to
military service; (b) Fracture Neck of 2nd 3rd and 4th
Metatarsal(RT)(OPTD)(Old) on 12.08.2007, which was held to be
"not connected with service" i.e., neither attributable nor aggravated
by service; and (c) Degenerative Disk Disease L4-L5, L5-S1(Old) in
April, 2015, which was held to be aggravated due to military service.
On this basis, the petitioner's father was assessed to qualify for 40%
disability pension lifelong.
8. Learned counsel also refer me to two further documents filed
with the writ petition in support of the petitioner's claim. The first of
those documents is an undertaking filed by him in connection with an
application for admission to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University ["GGSIPU"]. The petitioner's assertion in this document
that he is entitled to Priority-IV has been counter-signed by the
Secretary, Kendriya Sainik Board ["KSB"], New Delhi. The second
document annexed with the writ petition is an Educational Concession
Certificate dated 12.10.2021, issued by the Air Headquarters-
Directorate of Air Veterans ["AHQ-DAV"], which also indicates the
eligibility of the petitioner in Priority-IV.
9. Pursuant to an order dated 03.12.2021, wherein a prima facie
conclusion against the petitioner was recorded on the basis of these
documents, learned counsel have also placed on record the Discharge
Book of the petitioner's father. It is submitted that the Discharge Book
supports the petitioner's claims for inclusion in Priority-IV inasmuch
as it shows that the petitioner's father suffered a disability attributable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
to military service. Learned counsel point out that the conditions in
Priority-IV include boarding or invaliding out of the person herein
with disability attributable to military service, which has been fulfilled
in the present case.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also rely upon three
judgments in support of their contentions: the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs C.S. Sidhu1 and K.J.S
Buttar v. Union of India2, and a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of
this Court in Abhinav Sinhmar (Minor) Vs. The Chairman, Joint
Admission Committee & Ors3.
11. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the University, in
contrast, submits that the decision to place the petitioner in Priority-VI
rather than Priority-IV was taken by a committee of defence experts,
as referred to in the Admission Brochure itself. She has placed on
record two affidavits on behalf of the University. In the affidavit dated
01.12.2021, the University has stated that the documents of all CW
category candidates were verified on 25.10.2021 and 26.10.2021 by a
committee which included two officers of the rank of Lieutenant
Colonel, one being the Joint Director [Administration and
Coordination] of the KSB, and the second being a representative of the
Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence [Army]. In several
cases, including that of the petitioner, the priority was changed to a
lower category and in some cases the candidates were held not to be
not entitled to CW category reservation at all. Ms. Ahlawat submits
1 (2010) 4 SCC 563.
2 (2011) 11 SCC 429.
3 W.P.(C) 6076/2017 dated 30.10.2017.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
that the matter has thus been looked at by an expert body, with which
the writ court ought not to interfere.
12. An additional affidavit dated 24.12.2021 has also been placed
on record, in which it is stated that the matter has been reviewed by
the Joint Director [Admission and Coordination] of the KSB, who has
addressed a communication dated 09.12.2021 recording that the
Discharge Book of the petitioner's father shows that he was
discharged after completion of the conditions of his enrolment and
was not invalided/ medical boarded out. According to the said opinion,
the petitioner, therefore, has been correctly placed in Priority-VI rather
than Priority-IV. The affidavit also states that wards of armed forces
personnel who are medically unfit for further service, and are
invalided out from service after an invalid medical board, are placed in
Priority-IV. The position has been taken by the University that, in
terms of the Discharge Book of the petitioner's father, he was not
boarded out as a result of his injuries.
13. On the basis of these documents, Ms. Ahlawat submits that the
expert committee has drawn a distinction between cases in which
defence personnel were discharged from service as a result of
disability or injury attributable to service, and cases in which they
completed the term of service but were found eligible for disability
pension on ground of some injury or disability incurred during the
period of service. She submits that such a distinction is neither
arbitrary nor unreasonable, warranting the interference of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
14. Ms. Ahlawat also distinguished the judgments cited on behalf of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
the petitioner on the ground that in the aforesaid judgments, the
defence personnel concerned were found to have been released on
medical grounds. Ms. Ahlawat also contended that the two judgments
of the Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for the petitioner
concern eligibility for grant of disability pension, and not a
computation of priority for admission to an educational institution, as
in the present case.
Analysis
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the petitioner has not made out a case for the interference of the
writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Admission
Brochure enumerates the various priorities in the CW Category, and
clearly stipulates that the final priority would be subject to scrutiny by
a panel of defence experts at the time of document verification. The
scrutiny was conducted in terms of these provisions and a conclusion
has been reached against the petitioner. Such an expert opinion is
amenable to interference of the writ court only if it is shown to be
perverse or manifestly arbitrary. For the reasons discussed below, I am
not persuaded that the decision in the present case can be so
characterised.
16. Based upon the expert opinion received, the University has
made a distinction between cases where the defence personnel has
been boarded out as a result of a disability attributable to service, and
a case such as that of petitioner's father, where the person concerned
completed the period of service, but was nonetheless granted disability
pension upon the recommendations of RMB. The said distinction does
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
not appear to me either arbitrary or unreasonable, and is also not
inconsistent with the definition of Priority-IV, as contained in the
Admission Brochure itself. The definition of Priority-IV includes
wards of personnel who have been disabled in service and
"boarded/invalid out with disability attributable to military service".
To this extent, the definition may include a person such as the
petitioner's father, who underwent a medical board at the time of
discharge and was found to have suffered such a disability. However,
the Admissions Brochure also stipulates the requirement of a
discharge certificate with the remarks "medically boarded out,
disability attributable to medical service". This requirement is capable
of the interpretation placed on it by the expert committee, to the effect
that the discharge should be incurred by reason of the medical
condition of the guardian of the candidate. Such an interpretation of
the Admissions Brochure is not perverse or unreasonable.
17. Turning now to the documents placed on record, those
pertaining to GGSIPU and AHQ-DAV, upon which reliance has been
placed in the writ petition itself, are not documents contemplated in
the Admissions Brochure, and do not take the petitioner's case much
further.
18. As far as the report of the medical board is concerned, the
petitioner has relied upon the same to demonstrate that his father was
subjected to a Medical Board at the time of discharge and that the
Medical Board found that he had suffered injuries attributable to
service. The aforesaid facts are not disputed. However, it is also
undisputed that the three injuries mentioned in the report of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
Medical Board occurred in the years 2000, August, 2007 and April,
2015, whereas the petitioner's father was discharged from service only
upon completion of 20 years' service in November, 2016. It is not
evident from the report of the RMB that the discharge was on account
of the injuries sustained by him in the course of service.
19. The Discharge Book of the petitioner's father supports this
conclusion. He was enrolled in the Air Force as an Airman on
18.11.1996, and completed a total service of 20 years and 13 days. He
was discharged on 30.11.2016. In Column 6 of the Discharge Book,
the words "released", "retired" and "dismissed" have been struck out
and the word "discharged" has been retained. In Column 7 of the
Discharge Book, the reasons for discharge have been noted as follows:
"On RE expiry4 on fulfilling the condition of his
enrolment with Release Medical Board disability
attributable to service."
The petitioner's father has been assessed to be fit for civil and
government jobs.
20. The Discharge Book of the petitioner's father, to the extent that
it clearly records that the reason for the discharge is on the expiry of
his Regular Engagement on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment,
is consistent with the reasoning of the University. It is clear that the
petitioner's father, in fact, served for the period of 20 years, long after
his first injury was recorded, and for a reasonably long time even after
the third injury was recorded.
4It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the term "RE expiry" in Column 7 of the
Discharge Book refers to expiry of "Regular Engagement".
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
21. The three judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner also do not
persuade me to a contrary conclusion. In K.J.S. Buttar5, the Supreme
Court noted that the petitioner therein had been invalided out due to
serious injuries of a permanent nature sustained during the course of
service. The Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier precedents, held
that the petitioner was entitled to disability pension, as claimed and
negatived the contention of the Union of India, distinguishing between
those who have retired or invalided from 01.01.1996, and those who
were invalided after. It is in this context that the Court observed in
paragraph 18 of the judgment, relying upon the Defence Services
Regulation/ Pension Regulation for the Army 1961, that "where any
officer is found suffering from disability attributable to or aggravated
by Military Service, he/she shall be deemed to have been "invalided
out of service". Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised this
observation to contend that in the case of the petitioner's father also,
he was found to be suffering from disability attributable to or
aggravated by military service and must, therefore, be deemed to have
been invalided out of service. I am unable to accept this contention.
The observations of the Supreme Court are in the context of the
aforementioned Regulations, which have also been extracted in the
judgment of the Court. It is not possible to read the observations to
affect the entitlement of the petitioner to reservation in an educational
institution in a particular priority. The question of prioritisation to be
accorded to wards of different classes of defence personnel inter se is
not analogous to eligibility for disability pension.
5 Supra (note 2) (paragraphs 3 and 7).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
22. The judgment of the Supreme Court in C.S. Sidhu6 also deals
with the question of disability pension. In paragraph 8 of the said
judgment, the Court has noted the difficulties faced by Army
personnel who are denied disability pension, as in the case of the
respondent therein, who had met with an accident in a high-altitude
field area during the discharge of his duties. The facts and the
controversy in the present case, are entirely different, and the
petitioner's reliance upon the said judgment is misplaced.
23. The judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Abhinav
Sinhmar7 deals with a dispute similar to the present case, but is
distinguishable on facts. In that case, the petitioner's claim for
entitlement to Priority-IV in the CW category for admission to the
respondent- institution was accepted. The Court noted that the Rajya
Sainik Board ["RSB"] and KSB had initially supported the case of the
petitioner therein for admission under Priority-IV. However, a review
was undertaken, wherein the petitioner therein was downgraded from
Priority-IV to Priority-VI. The Court found no reason to have been
attributed for the said decision by the Review Committee. It therefore
relied upon the earlier certificates issued by the RSB and KSB which
expressly placed the candidate in Priority-IV. A clear finding is also
recorded8 that the father of the petitioner therein had been released
from service due to his disability. In the present case, neither of these
factors is applicable. The judgment, therefore, cannot conclude the
matter in the petitioner's favour.
6 Supra (note 1).
7 Supra (note 3).
8 Supra (note 3) (paragraphs 7 and 13).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
Conclusion
24. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned decision of the
respondents to consider the petitioner in Priority-VI of the CW
category rather than Priority-IV is not vulnerable to interference of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
25. The writ petition, alongwith the pending application, is
therefore, dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 27, 2022
"Bp"
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:31.01.2022
