Coming to the relief of wards of serving armed forces personnel, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the State to include them under the reservation category for admission to MBBS/BDS courses from the current academic year.
As per an order passed by the Ministry of Defence, reservation for wards of armed forces personnel for admission is prioritised under eight categories. This include widows/wards of defence personnel killed in action, disabled in action, died while in service, disability attributable to military service, receipt of gallantry awards, wards of ex-servicemen, wives of disabled defence personnel or ex-servicemen, wards of serving personnel and wives of serving personnel.
However, a Government Order passed by the Health and Family Welfare Department in 2018 had not considered the last three categories, which included the wards of serving personnel, for reservation.
Justice G. R. Swaminathan wondered what would happen if the ward of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, hailed as a hero of our times, would have to face a similar situation.“ Let us imagine that his daughter is an MBBS aspirant and wants to join one of the government medical colleges in the State. Can she avail the benefit of reservation meant for defence personnel? The answer is ‘no’.”
What if, on the other hand, Abhinandan Varthaman had quit defence service after his return to India from Pakistan. As a daughter of an ex-serviceman, she would be entitled to the benefit of reservation, the court said. “Does it not sound absurd and irrational!” the court wondered. The facts were similar to that of D. Kuralarasan, a medical aspirant whose father is a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army.
The petitioner, Kuralarasan, who cleared NEET 2018 sought inclusion of the three categories for reservation. He claimed that because of the State government’s order he was unable to avail himself of the benefit of reservation meant for defence personnel. He pointed to a G.O. passed in 1979 that indicated reservation for ex/deceased/serving defence personnel. There was nothing on record to show that the G.O. was repealed, he said.
The State, in its response, said that special categories under special reservation were reduced to four - differently abled, eminent sportspersons, children of freedom fighters and children of ex-servicemen. Reliance on a 1979 G.O. was not justified when a new policy was in place, it was argued.
Taking cognisance of the submissions, the court observed that when the State had chosen to adopt the communication of the Ministry of Defence, the scope of the same could not be restricted. No reason had been set forth on the restrictions and nothing has been stated for omitting three categories. If the State wanted to part with the earlier G.O., certainly grounds had to be prepared, the court said.
The court said that there was no reason to leave out certain categories. “We have to recognise their valour and sacrifice. Of course, there can be a distinction between the wards of ex-servicemen and serving personnel. That is why they are placed high on priority. But there is no justification for totally omitting the wards of serving personnel,” the court said.
Omission of the three categories was arbitrary and irrational and offended the mandate enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, the court said and quashed the G.O. to the extent that it omitted the wards of serving personnel.
