Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 pk

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : 10th September, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 13th September, 2010 + LPA 582/2009 SANJAY KUMAR ..... Appellant Through Mr.S.M.Dalal, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent Through Mr.R.Balasubramanium, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the challenge is to the order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 10869/2009. 2. The brief resume of facts are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the disability certificate of his father, Ex. GMR Chiranji Lal, as a valid certificate for the purpose of admission to the MBBS course for the academic session 2009-2010. As pleaded, the father of the petitioner had applied to Kendriya Sainik Board, West Block IV, R.K. Puram, New Delhi for a reserved seat in Medical/Dental Colleges for the year 2009-2010 but eventually, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the father of the petitioner comes under priority IV being disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service, but the authorities concerned did not illegally extend the benefit. 3. The learned Single Judge referred to the Scheme which contained Form A-4 and the Certificate issued by the Zila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari and came to hold that the father of the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria inasmuch as he did not satisfy the criteria laid down in Form A-4 which was the Form to be filled. 4. We have heard Mr. S.M. Dalal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. R. Balasubramanyam, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The singular question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to be included to the admission to MBBS course under the reserved quota meant for disabled persons in service. Mr. Dalal has invited our attention to the communication dated 3rd June, 1994 from the Additional Secretary, Department of Defence. In paragraph 2 of the said communication, it is mentioned as follows: "2. Though education is a State subject and Universities are autonomous bodies standardization of preference for admission in Defence quota is desirable to bring about uniformity in the States/UTs. For the purpose of standardization, the following prioritization is recommended:- Priority-I: Widows/wards of Defence personnel killed in action. Priority-II: Wards of serving personnel and ex-Servicemen disabled in action. Priority-III: Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died in peace time with death attributable to military service. Priority-IV: Wards of ex-Servicemen disabled in peace time with disability attributable to military service. Priority-V: Wards of ex-Servicemen and serving personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards:- (1) Param Vir Chakra (2) Ashok Chakra (3) Sarvottam Yudh Seva Medal (4) Maha Vir Chakra (5) Kirti Chakra (6) Uttam Yudh Seva Medal (7) Vir Chakra (8) Shaurya Chakra (9) Yudh Seva Medal (10) Sena, Nau Sena, Vayusena Medal (11) Mention-in-Despatches Priority-VI: Wards of ex-Servicemen. Priority-VII: Wards of serving personnel." 6. Relying on the same, it is contended by Mr. Dalal that the Scheme only provided for defence personnel disabled in peace time with disability attributable to military service and the father of the appellant falls in the same category. 7. Mr. Balasubramanyam, learned counsel for the respondent, has invited our attention to the scheme which has been brought on record. It is urged by him that what