Where "Wards" Is Undefined, Siblings Of Unmarried Battle Casualty Cannot Be Excluded From Defence Reservation: Delhi High Court Upholds Siblings’ MBBS Admission
The Bench said that a certifying authority's volte-face after countersigning eligibility cannot constitute lawful basis for cancellation.
The Delhi High Court has held that where the expression "wards" in the Ministry of Defence Circular governing Defence Category reservation remains undefined, a restrictive construction excluding siblings of an unmarried deceased soldier cannot be imposed. The Court noted that other policy instruments of the MoD, including the Compassionate Appointment Policy, Army Recruitment Advertisements and the Agniveer Notification, expressly recognise brothers and unmarried sisters of an unmarried battle casualty as members of the family entitled to defence benefits.
Dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, the Court upheld the restoration of MBBS admissions granted to the brother and sister of a sailor who died in harness during operational duty.
The Court further held that an admission granted after due scrutiny of documents cannot be cancelled without prior notice or hearing, and that an order resting solely on an informal one-line email from an authority who had himself countersigned the candidates' eligibility at the time of counselling, standing in complete contradiction to his own earlier certification, cannot constitute a lawful basis for cancellation of an innocently obtained admission.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed, “…The expression ‘wards’ remains undefined both in the MoD Circular dated 30.11.2017 and in the Admission Brochure 2023-2024 of the Appellant. In the absence of a clear and unambiguous definition, a restrictive construction excluding siblings cannot be imposed”.
While refusing to interfere with the Impugned Judgment dated March 18, 2024, the Bench further observed, “…in view of the complete absence of independent reasoning in the Cancellation Notice, the violation of natural justice, the bona fide of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the volte face of Brig. S.K. Narain, who had himself countersigned their undertaking at the time of counselling and certified their eligibility under Defence Category Priority-III, only thereafter to opine, without any formal reasoning or order, that they were not so entitled”.
Advocate Anita Sahani appeared for the appellant and Advocates Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj appeared for the respondent.
As per the factual matrix, Late Kumar Shubham, a sailor in the Indian Navy, died on September 16, 2022 as a result of an electric shock sustained during operational duty aboard INS Car Nicobar.
His death was officially categorised as Death Attributable to Military Service under Category C. He was unmarried at the time of his death and his brother, Respondent No. 1 Kumar Saurabh, and sister, Respondent No. 2 Kumari Subhargi Priya, appeared in NEET UG 2023 and were allocated seats in MBBS colleges affiliated to the University under Defence Category Priority-III, which covers wards and widows of Defence personnel who died in service with death attributable to military service.
At every stage of the admission process, including physical counselling, the respondents fully and candidly disclosed that they were the siblings, and not the children, of the deceased sailor. Their undertaking at counselling was independently examined and countersigned by Brigadier S.K. Narain of the Kendriya Sainik Board, who certified their eligibility under Defence Category Priority-III.
Thereafter, following a complaint in the University's grievance cell, an inquiry was addressed to the Board, which responded by email on September 13, 2023 stating that the respondents were not eligible for the Defence quota and that the Relationship Certificates had been issued inadvertently. The University issued a Cancellation Notice on September 19, 2023 without prior notice or hearing. The respondents filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the cancellation. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and restored their admissions. The University preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the respondents' challenge to the interim stay granted in the appeal, and the matter proceeded to final hearing.
The Court held that the expression "wards" is undefined both in the MoD Circular dated November 30, 2017 and in the University's Admission Brochure 2023-2024.
“The contention advanced by the Appellant that Clause 6.1.2 of the Admission Brochure 2023-2024 restricts the meaning of “wards” to children and widows alone is equally untenable. The said Clause merely prescribes the nature of the certificate required to be submitted by children and widows for the purpose of admission to a Defence Category seat. It does not purport to define the expression “wards” as employed in the priority framework of the MoD Circular…”, the Bench said.
The Court drew support from several instruments issued by or under the authority of the MoD.
“…the Indian Army Recruitment Advertisement issued by Madras Engr GP and Centre Bangalore dated 06.09.2017 specifically includes ‘one real brother of an unmarried Battle Casualty’ under Priority-I for the purpose of enrolment, providing for instant enrolment of one real brother of a battle casualty where the deceased was unmarried or did not have a male child. Further, the Notification dated 29.12.2022 issued by the MoD, Department of Military Affairs, concerning Agniveers, defines the term ‘family’ to expressly include minor brothers and unmarried sisters of a male subscriber”, it said.
“Taken cumulatively, the aforesaid instruments issued by or under the authority of the MoD demonstrate that the broader defence policy framework of the Government of India has consistently recognised siblings of an unmarried deceased soldier as forming part of the family unit entitled to the benefits and protections extended to the wards of Defence personnel”, it further noted.
On natural justice, the Court held the cancellation was independently vitiated by three grounds, complete absence of reasons in the cancellation notice, failure to afford any hearing before adverse action, and reliance on an informal one-line email from Brigadier Narain who had himself countersigned the respondents' eligibility at counselling.
“…The subsequent change of opinion by Brig. S.K. Narain, as reflected in his e-mail dated 13.09.2023, which stands in complete contradiction to his own earlier certification, cannot constitute a lawful basis for cancellation of an admission innocently obtained”, the Bench further said.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the Single Judge's judgment dated March 18, 2024 was upheld. The stay order dated April 29, 2024 was vacated. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were held entitled to continue their MBBS studies at their respective colleges and to all consequential reliefs available in law.
Cause Title: Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University v. Kumar Saurabh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4832-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Anita Sahani, Advocate.
Respondents: Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Dr. Vedant Bharadwaj and Pooja Gupta, Advocates, Vikrant Nitesh Goyal, Yash Basoya, Rakshit Tyagi and Kunal Dixit, Advocates.