Wards Of Battle Casualty Soldier Not Entitled To Priority-II If Officer Continued In Service: Delhi High Court Upholds 2018 Policy

The Court examined the evolution of the reservation policy and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued in 2020 clarifying the inter-se priority categories. It noted that Priority-II applies only to those battle casualties who were invalided out of service after undergoing an Invalid Medical Board (IMB) and were boarded out on account of disability. Further that personnel who were retained in service despite disability and later retired voluntarily fall outside Priority-II and such personnel are to be treated as Ex-Servicemen, making their wards eligible only under Priority-VI.

Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, “The stand taken by the respondents no. 1 and 2 is that the certificate for “Priority-IV” was issued inadvertently, the petitioner no.1 is actually entitled for “Priority-VI”. This Court has also found that in terms of Policy of 2018, the correct category of the petitioner no.1 will be “Priority-VI”. Therefore, this Court cannot issue mandamus to the respondents no.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner no.1’s status under “Priority-IV” contrary to Policy of 2018. It is a trite law that no direction can be issued mandating the State or its instrumentalities to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable”.

“The law is well settled that vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed. Prior to May, 2017 there was no extant Policy providing for reservation of seats for the courses other than for medical/dental colleges, therefore, no vested rights could have crystallized prior to the said date. Even the Policy of May, 2017 or impugned Policy of 2018 does not create any legal right in favour of the petitioners for ‘Priority-II’ or ‘Priority-IV’, rather this Court has found that the petitioner no.1 is legitimately entitled to “Priority-VI” in terms of Policy of 2018. Therefore, no vested right could have accrued to petitioner no.1 for ‘Priority-II’ or ‘Priority-IV’, contrary to the extant Policy”, the Bench further observed.

Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan appeared for the petitioner and Abhishek Yadav, SPC appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the petitioner’s father, a Permanent Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army, sustained 40% composite disability during Operation Rakshak/Parakram in 2001 and was declared a “battle casualty” in the year 2004. However, in terms of the Army policy, he was retained in service and later opted for premature retirement in 2011.

When his son sought admission to Delhi University under the CW quota for undergraduate courses, he was initially issued a Priority-IV certificate, which was later cancelled and downgraded to Priority-VI (Ward of Ex-Serviceman). The petitioners challenged the 2018 policy to the extent it restricted Priority-II only to those disabled in action and boarded out from service.

It was contended that the distinction between soldiers “disabled in action” and those “disabled in action and boarded out” was artificial and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further argued that prior practice and earlier policies created a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner.

The Court emphasised that the policy clearly distinguishes between soldiers who were compelled to leave service due to disability (invalided out), and soldiers who continued in service and later retired on completion of tenure or at their own request. The former category, the Court observed, reflects a higher degree of service disruption directly attributable to disability in action, justifying preferential treatment.

The Court rejecting the argument of retrospective application, held that at the time the officer retired in 2011, no inter-se priority policy existed for non-medical courses. The policy granting structured priority for professional and non-professional courses was introduced only in 2017 and subsequently amended in 2018.

While refusing to accept the reliance placed on another similar incident, with similar facts and university in the year 2015, the Bench noted, “In the opinion of this Court, the right to claim reservation has accrued to the petitioner no.1 only under the Policy of 2018, therefore, he cannot rely on an instance that predates the said policy. In other words, there was no extant policy in place granting reservation in the professional and non-professional courses, except for medical/dental courses, in the year 2015, therefore, the petitioner no.1 cannot claim negative equality with Aditi Singh”.

The Bench further said that the judgment in State of Bihar and ors. v. Sachindra Narayan and ors., (2019) 3 SCC 803 cannot be referred to since “…merely because Delhi University in the past had given admission to the wards of servicemen/ex-servicemen who were disabled, under the “Priority II” without there being any policy in that behalf, will not confer an enforceable right in favour of petitioners, and that too contrary to the Policy of 2018, which is now in place and has been held by this Court to be rational and non-arbitrary in the foregoing paragraphs”.

It further noted that courts cannot interfere with policy decisions unless they are manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional, a threshold not met in the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1663]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv., Disha Joshi, Shashank Jain and Asmita Singh, Advocates.

Respondent: Abhishek Yadav, SPC, Kapil Dev Yadav, Atul Kumar, Praveen Kumar Singh, C. Sanal Nambiar, Chetna Singh and Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment