Telangana High Court Upholds Validity Of Rules Confining Reservation Of 1% Seats For Children Of Ex-Servicemen & Service Personnel Of Armed Forces For Admission To Medical Courses

The petitioners, dependents of Border Security Force (BSF) Personnel, had called in question the constitutionality of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Unaided Non-minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007, (Rules of 2007) and the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017), which confine the reservation of 1% seats for children of ex-servicemen and service personnel of three wings of Armed Forces viz., Army, Navy and Air Force and who domiciled in the Telangana State based on the permanent address/home-town declared by them while joining in service and as recorded in their service registers.

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara held, “In our judgment, the respondents have satisfied the twin test. The classification is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. There is a clear object sought to be achieved to provide reservation of 1% seats to children of Armed Forces i.e, Army, Navy and Air Force. The basis of classification has a nexus with the object of the classification.”

Senior Counsel A. Venkatesh represented the Petitioners while Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (‘NEET’) 2024 and secured 455 marks and applied for the MBBS course. Respondent No.2 issued the prospectus/regulations for admission into MBBS and BDS courses under competent authority quota for the Academic Year 2024-25. Clause E of said prospectus provides horizontal reservation for special categories wherein 1% of seats were reserved for children of Armed Forces Personnel.

The petitioner’s father had rendered his services in BSF [102 BN (Battalion)] since June 4, 1986 and took voluntary retirement w.e.f. April 30, 1997. The petitioner appeared for NEET 2022-23 and secured qualifying marks. In the previous prospectus also a provision was made pursuant to which, only children of Armed Forces Personnel were eligible to be considered against 1% quota. However, the petitioner could not secure a seat in the Academic Year 2022-23 because of her low merit. Since the Rules of 2007 and Rules of 2017 were coming in the way of petitioners for consideration against 1% quota, the petitioners challenged the same on the ground that benefit of reservation of 1% in seats is confined to children of personnel of Army, Navy and Air Force are discriminatory and bad in law.

Reasoning

As per the Bench, G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.75 left no room for any doubt that the benefit of 1% horizontal reservation is confined to the children of Armed Forces viz., Army, Navy and Air Force.

To examine the legality of classification, the Bench explained that two conditions must be satisfied. First, there must be an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped from others left out of the group. Second, the differentia must have a rationale relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. This means that the basis of classification must have a nexus with the object of classification.

It was further explained that the principle of equality before law does not mean that the same law must apply to everyone. It provides that the same law should apply to those who are similarly situated. Likewise, the expression ‘equal protection of law’ envisages that among equals, laws must be equally administered. Equality, thus, by no stretch of imagination, can entail sameness. Reference was made to the judgments in Gauri Shanker v. Union of India (1994) and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).

“If the present matter is tested on the envil of aforesaid principles, it will be clear like noon day that admittedly, the personnel engaged by Army, Navy and Air Force are governed by different set of Acts/Rules and their service conditions are different than the service conditions of BSF/CAPF personnel. The tenure of service of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel is different than the BSF personnel”, it said.

The Bench also observed that in certain courses in the State of Telangana, the Government in addition to children of Army, Navy and Air Force provides reservation to the children of CAPF as well. However, the courses are different. “Such a decision to provide reservation is based on expert opinions. Merely because in some courses reservation is extended to both categories, neither equality between the two is established nor any enforceable right, is created in favour of the present petitioners”, it said.

Finding that the classification in question is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, the Bench dismissed the Petition and held, “In view of forgoing analysis, the impugned Rules cannot be said to be unconstitutional in nature infringing the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Cause Title: Vangala Vishnu Priya and others. v. The State of Telangana and others. (Case No.: Writ Petition Nos.26246 and 27045 of 2024)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Counsel A. Venkatesh, Counsels K. Sridhar, P. Sri Harsha Reddy

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan, Deputy Solicitor General of India Gadi Praveen Kumar, Counsel B. Mukherjee, Government Pleader Mahesh Raje, Advocates S. Agastya Sharma, B. Sree Rama Krishna

Click here to read/download Order