Kabul Singh vs Panjab University and another

The petitioner is an ex-serviceman who has earned honorable

discharge with pension after putting in 18 years of service. He was discharged on

30.06.2003. The petitioner was matriculate at the time of joining Army service.

He completed 10+2 while in service. After his discharge, he completed his

Graduation i.e. Bachelor of Arts from Kurukshetra University in the year 2017.

Thereafter, the petitioner wished to enroll for the LL.B. 3 years course in the

Academic Session 2017-18. He applied for the entrance test against 5% defence

quota and secured 49.75% marks. Thus, he was placed at Serial No. 45 in the

merit list of defence category. The reservation for defence category, as provided

in the prospectus was 5% which translated into 15 seats for defence category out

of total of 300 seats. Since the petitioner was way down in the merit list, he

could not secure admission in the LL.B. 3 years course.

The grievance of the petitioner is that according to the terms of the

prospectus, preference has been given to wards of ex-serviceman/defence

personnel in the quota of 5% for defence category, whereas it should be the other

way round. The relevant part of the prospectus relating to 5% quota of defence

category and the priorities mentioned therein is reproduced below:-

(vi) 5% (for all the under-mentioned categories taken together) for

candidates who fall in one of the following categories (which are

given there in order of precedence):-

Son/Daughter/Spouse of such Defence personnel and

CAPF personnel who died in action. (Only those who

were wholly dependant on such personnel shall be

considered).

Son/Daughter/Spouse as are wholly dependant on such

Defence Personnel and CAPF Personnel who were

incapacitated/died while in service.

Defence and CAPF personnel who were incapacitated

while in service.

Son/daughter/spouse of ex-serviceman who are wholly

dependent on them.

Son/daughter/spouse of serving Defence personnel and

CAPF who are wholly dependant on them.

Ex-servicemen

Serving Defence personnel and CAPF personnel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that reservation is

provided to ex-servicemen to enable them to get rehabilitated in civil life after

leaving service and in case they are not granted preference over the wards of ex-

servicemen, the very aim of the reservation stands defeated. Learned counsel has

relied upon judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India titled as Dilwan

Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1996(8) SCC 369 and a Division Bench judgment of

this Court titled as Ishwar Singh vs. Kurukshetra University and others, 2013(3)

SCT 493.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University

submits that 5% defence quota is to be filled in accordance with the terms of the

prospectus which have been incorporated after a thorough analysis by the

concerned authorities keeping in view the need of the reservation and the intent

behind the same.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by

either side.

The object of any reservation is to provide equal opportunity to

people who are otherwise placed in a disadvantageous situation. Defence

personnel who have either lost their lives in action/while in service or have been

incapacitated are not in a position to provide for their families and, therefore,

their wards (son/daughter/spouse) are entitled to be given the highest preference

where quota is provided for defence personnel. An ex-serviceman can not claim

preference over such wards for the simple reason that they draw pension and are

looking for a second job avenue after having exhausted the avenue chosen by

them in the first instance, the benefit of which has been reaped by their families.

On the contrary, wards of defence personnel killed in action/while in service and

wards of incapacitated defence personnel are at the threshold of their lives and are

seeking to acquire qualification to equip themselves for providing support not

only to their families which may be acquired in future, but also to provide for

their widowed mothers (in case the defence personnel has died) and/or parents

(in case defence personnel has been incapacitated). Thus, the need of such wards

is much higher and they are surely entitled to preference. Moreover, the younger

generation needs adequate support to be able to grow up to become useful

citizens. Wards of ex-serviceman and defence personnel are invariably educated

in bits and pieces. It is well known that the ex-serviceman and defence personnel

are transferred very frequently as a condition of their service which results in

untimely interruption of the education of their children. Thus, they too, need an

additional helping hand at the stage of acquisition of degree qualification. This is

the most crucial stage of their lives and if the policy makers have deemed it

appropriate to grant a reservation to a limited extent, preference should be given

to such wards. As stated earlier, ex-serviceman although entitled to support in

the form of reservation for the purposes of rehabilitation, their need is

comparatively less.

Considerations are altogether different when it comes to recruitment

in service. Here, an ex-serviceman is being rewarded for his services to the

nation and is given an opportunity for early rehabilitation. Such a person has

limited avenues and social needs dictate that such persons should be absorbed

into civil society at the earliest. Children/wards, on the other hand, have greater

opportunity and flexibility to explore various avenues.

Thus construed, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilwan Singh

case (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner because the Supreme

Court was examining the case of an ex-serviceman who was seeking public

employment. The judgment in Ishwar Singh case (supra) also does not support

the petitioner because it is noticed in that case that the Government policy itself

provided for preference to ex-serviceman. The decision has been rendered in the

light of the policy decision of the Government and not against it whereas in the

present case, the policy decision is against the petitioner. The same is neither arbitrary, illogical nor does it violate the Constitution or any other law.

The writ petition does not have any merit and the same is dismissed,

however, without any order as to costs.