Suraj Parkash vs Punjab University, Chandigarh and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.

C.M. No. 14626 of 2012

Prayer is to place on record written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application disposed of.

CWP No. 16278 of 2012

The petitioner is an Ex-servicemen and has retired from Indian Air Force on 31.03.2007. He has also served the nation for 20 years meritoriously. He had applied for admission to LL.B. Semester course for Session 2012-13 under reservation meant for Ex-serviceman. Going into his background, the petitioner has disclosed that he passed his matriculation examination in the year 1983 in 1st Division. He joined Indian Air Force in the year 1987 and has superannuated as Junior Warrant Officer in the year 2007. He has grievance against the reservation done for Ex-serviceman category, where wards and children of the Ex-serviceman have been preferred to the Ex-serviceman, who have been relegated below the children and wards of Ex-serviceman.

Otherwise, petitioner being eligible had applied for the said LL.B. course on 30.06.2012. Entrance test was held on 16.06.2012. The petitioner appeared in the said test being eligible under the defence category and qualified. He was called for counseling but was ignored only on the ground that vacancy shall first go to the wards of the Ex-serviceman.

The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 with his representation but was not considered for admission and preference was given to the wards of the Ex-serviceman. He, accordingly, has filed this writ petition.

Reply on behalf of the University is filed.

Reference is made to "order of preference" as mentioned in the Rules/Handbook of Information, 2012 at page 181 which is duly approved by the University and it is as under:-

5% (for all the under mentioned categories taken together) for candidates who fall in one of the following categories (which are given here in order of preference) :-

i) Sons/Daughters/Spouses of such defence personnel, para military personnel like CRPF/BSF and Police Personnel etc. who died in action while on duty. Only those who were wholly dependent on such personnel shall be considered.

ii) Sons/Daughters/Spouse as are wholly dependent on such Defence Personnel who were incapacitated/died while in service.

iii) Such Sons/Daughters/Spouses of ex-servicemen (Defence and Para military personnel like personnel like CRPF/BSF etc.) as are wholly dependent on them.

iv) Defence personnel incapacitated while in service.

v) Such Sons/Daughters/Spouses of serving defence personnel and para military personnel like CRPF/BSF etc. as are wholly dependent on them.

vi) Ex-servicemen

vii) Serving defence personnel/paramilitary personnel like CRPF/BSF etc.

It is, accordingly, stated that seats in the Ex-serviceman category is to be first given to dependent Sons/Daughters/Spouses of defence personnel, para military personnel like CRPF/BSF and Police Personnel who died in action while in service. Second preference is for those Sons/Daughters/Spouses who were wholly dependent on such defence personnel who were incapacitated/died while in service. Third preference is given to those Sons/Daughters and Spouse of Ex-serviceman as are wholly dependent on them. Fourth preference is for Defence Personnel incapacitated while in service, followed by Sons/Daughters/Spouses of Ex-servicemen who are wholly dependent on Ex-serviceman. Then comes the preference for Ex-serviceman. It is on this basis stated that the claim of the petitioner could not be considered in preference to others.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged order of preference as referred above. As per the counsel, first preference has to be given to the Ex-serviceman who is more needy compared to children and wards of such Ex-serviceman. The reason advanced by counsel in support of his plea is that the ex-serviceman would be more in need to enhance his career compared to children and wards. This would not appear to be a valid ground to tinker with order of preference. Even the need of Sons/Daughters/Spouses of serviceman killed or incapacitated in action would not be any less. Ex-serviceman are those who have superannuated after playing their innings and are looking for a fresh innings. They would be having resources. It is a second career that they would be looking for. Son/Daughter/Spouse would be at the threshold of life and also at an age where they are to start their higher studies. I do not find anything objectionable in the order of preference much less any thing illegal or arbitrary. The instructions are not making any discrimination by providing order of this preference.

The counsel has also placed before me a judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Dilwan Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others, JT 1996(4) 248 which would not strictly apply to the facts of this case. That was the case where Ex-serviceman was seeking appointment against the reservation made for Ex-serviceman category. The Court has noticed that calling Ex-serviceman with dependent may not be proper as Ex-serviceman is to be rehabilitated. The Court did not have any instructions to consider in order of preference as in the present case. A case of appointment and admission may have to be viewed differently. Here the order in which the claim is to be considered is provided. I am, therefore, not inclined to invoke the writ jurisdiction to interfere. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.