Delhi High Court
Arnav Tyagi (Minor) Through His ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 September, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ LPA 499/2022 & CM APPL. 38070/2022
ARNAV TYAGI (MINOR) THROUGH HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Ms. Shivali,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Banga, Advocate with
Major Partho Katyayan
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) 2604/2022, the Appellant seeks to challenge the
said judgment by filing the instant LPA.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant is the son of an Ex-
Serviceman, who was serving in the Indian Navy and was invalidated from
service for being physically handicapped.
3. It is stated that the Appellant appeared in the examination for Army
Public School, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi. According to the Appellant, he had
qualified the exam but he was not called for the interview.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:28.09.2022
16:47:06
4. It is stated that despite sending representations to the Respondents, no
reply was received by the Appellant and, thereafter, the Appellant
approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 2604/2022
with the following prayers:-
"i) To direct the respondents to consider the petitioner
admission after granting him reservation as per
judgment Aryan Raj Vs. Chandigarh Administration &
Ors. and also in the light of judgment Anmol Bhandari
(Minor) through his father /natural guardian Vs. Delhi
Technological University, the vacancies of Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribe and the petitioner to be
given benefits of ex-serviceman (physically
handicapped's son/SC/ST);
ii) To direct the Respondents grant reservation to the
physically handicapped persons/ or their wards"
5. The learned Single Judge by way of the judgment impugned herein
held that since the Appellant failed to qualify the admission test, he was not
called for the interview. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ
petition vide Judgment dated 13.07.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant has taken this Court through a
policy decision taken by the Government of India regarding reservation of
seats for admission to Rashtriya Military School for the Entitled Category,
and submits that 70 per cent seats of Entitled Category are reserved for
wards of JCOs/OR of Army and their equivalent in Navy and the Air Force.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further drawn the attention of
this Court to the Notification dated 21.05.2018 issued by Government of
India, Ministry of Defence for reservation/preference to the wards of Armed
Forces personnel for admission to Medical/Professional/Non-Professional
Courses and states that there is specific reservation for wives of defence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:28.09.2022
16:47:06
personnel disabled in action and boarded out from service, defence
personnel disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to
military service. He states that there are reservations for wards of Armed
Forces personnel killed in action during war and peace with death
attributable to military service. He states that there must be reservation for
wards of Armed Forces personnel who have been invalidated from
service/physically handicapped. According to him, unless such reservation is
not granted, wards of such Armed Forces personnel having been invalidated
from service will never get an opportunity of coming up in life.
8. The Appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment dated
12.09.2012 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Anmol Bhandari v.
Delhi Technological University, W.P.(C) 4853/2012 and Order dated
08.07.2020 passed by the Apex Court in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh
Administration & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2718/2020.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents, contends that the
Appellant did not qualify in the Class 6 entrance examination for admission
to the Rashtriya Military School, and, therefore, was not called for the
interview. She submits that the Rashtriya Military Schools function under
aegis of the Ministry of Defence and the admission to these Schools are
governed by Army Order 6/2007/GS and GoI, MoD (Army) letter No. A/
84019 / CGC-2020 / GS / MT-15 / III / 39 / US (SSC) / D(GS-II) dated
18.01.2021.
10. The learned Counsel for the Respondent states that under the
reservation of seats to be filled in Rashtriya Military schools through
Common Entrance Test, 70 per cent of seats are reserved for the Entitled
Category, i.e. for wards of JCOs/OR of Army and their equivalent in Navy
and Air Force, and 30 per cent of seats are reserved for non-entitled
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:28.09.2022
16:47:06
category, i.e. wards of officers of Army and their equivalent in Navy and Air
Force and Civilians combined. She states that 27 per cent seats within the
entitled and non-entitled category are reserved for wards of OBC candidates
of non-creamy layer and overall reservations will not exceed 27%, 15% and
7.5% respectively for OBC, SC and ST candidates. The abovementioned
two categories in addition to the 50 seats are reserved for wards of Armed
Forces personnel killed in action during war and peace, and 10 per cent seats
are reserved for girl candidates from Academic Session 2022-23. She,
therefore, contends that there is no specific reservation for wards of Armed
Forces personnel who have been invalidated due to disability. It is the
submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the children of
Ex-Serviceman, who had been invalidated from service, are not entitled to
any special reservation.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
12. A perusal of the records indicates that there is no reservation for
admission to children of Armed Forces personnel who have been invalidated
due to disabilities and 70 per cent of the seats reserved for the Entitled
Category are to be filled up by wards of JCOs/OR. Further, there are seats
reserved for wards of Armed Forces personnel who died in action in war and
peace.
13. In the absence of any reservation, this Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct
specific reservation for the Appellant. In the absence of any reservation for
wards of Armed Forces Personnel who have been invalidated due to
disability, the Appellant cannot claim that he is entitled to be called for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:28.09.2022
16:47:06
interview as a matter of right and a writ cannot be issued to the authorities
without any right.
14. The judgments relied on by the Appellant do not apply to the facts of
the present case inasmuch as in both these cases, the Petitioners were
suffering from a disability and were entitled to the benefit of Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995. In the present case, the Appellant does not suffer
from any disability and is a child of Armed Forces personnel who has been
invalidated due to disability, and, therefore, these two judgments will apply
to the facts of the present case and will not come to the rescue of the
Appellant.
15. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge. The LPA is dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
hsk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:28.09.2022
16:47:06
