Ex. Sgt Manoj Kumar & Anr v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors

judgment and order.

i) There is yet another reason why we decline to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and the reason is that

the appellant/ petitioner having participated in the admission process could not be permitted to challenge the same only at the final stages of the process of admission. The learned Single Judge in this regard has recorded a finding based on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sonam Rawal v. University of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 375 wherein it has categorically been held that the terms of the brochure are binding upon a candidate and further that a candidate cannot after having participated in the selection process, and after having been rejected for any reason, turn around and challenge the terms or the criteria of Admission Brochure.

¶10For the discussions made and reasons given above, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/ appellant.

¶11Resultantly, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed.

¶12There shall be no order as to cost.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 27, 2025 N.Khanna

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 27.01.2025 % LPA 60/2025 & C.M. No. 4735/2025 EX. SGT MANOJ KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajai Kumar, Mr. Rishpreet Singh and Mr. A.R. Pandey, Advs. versus GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ORS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv. for R-1 and R-2. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with Mr. Tribhuvan, Adv. for R-5 & R-6. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Yash Upadhyay, Mr. Siddhant Dutt and Ms. Ishita Panday, Advs. For R-7 and R-8/GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. This intra-court appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 11th November, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/ petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 11942/2024 has been dismissed. 2. Instituting the writ petition, the appellant/ petitioner had challenged the validity of inclusion of wards/ widows of Para-Military Personnel and/ or Police Personnel within the quota meant for providing reservation in admission to various courses by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') under Priority (I) to Priority (V) for Defence Category as provided in the Admission Brochure 2024-25 published by the University. 3. Further prayer made in the writ petition was for issuance of a direction to the respondents to publish the list of eligible candidates under Defence Category excluding the wards/ widows of Para-Military Personnel and/ or Police Personnel for admission to various courses in medicine for the academic session 2024-25 under the State quota and, accordingly, make allotment of seats without giving benefit of the reservation under the Defence category to the wards/ widows of Para-Military Personnel and/ or Police Personnel. 4. Negating the claim of the appellant/ petitioner made in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, by passing the impugned judgment, has held that providing reservation to the wards/ widows of Para-Military Personnel and/ or Police Personnel primarily lies in the realm of policy making and in absence of any arbitrariness or unreasonableness or manifest illegality, no interference in such policy decisions is permissible. The learned Single Judge has further held that challenge by the appellant/ petitioner to the impugned condition of the Admission Brochure could not be entertained at a belated stage keeping in view the fact that the petitioner without challenging the same had participated in the admission process and opted to challenge the same only at the final stages of the process. 5. Impeaching the validity of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant/ petitioner that inclusion of wards/ widows of Para-Military Personnel and/ or Police Personnel, who received gallantry awards, under the Defence quota is arbitrary and illegal for the reason that such inclusion dilutes the core intent behind Defence category quota which was initially introduced to benefit wards/ widows of Defence Personnel exclusively. It has further been argued that the reservation for the wards/ widows of Para-Military Personnel and/ or Police Personnel has been provided by the respondent/ university in utter disregard to various letters/ circulars issued by the Ministry of Defence, Union of India. 6. It has also been argued by the learned counsel representing the appellant/ petitioner that Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the GNCTD') directed the universities to adopt the reservation in the Defence Category on the basis of the letter dated 21.05.2018 issued by the Ministry of Defence where reservation was restricted exclusively to the wards/ widows of Defence Personnel and such wards and widows of Para-Military and Police Personnel were excluded from the same and, therefore, merely on the basis of a