JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has raised his grievance against denying his son Sa¬marth admission in the Medical Course pursuant to the Joint Entrance Examination, 2007 securing 15th rank under M.I. category i.e. 3% quota reserved for children/widows of personnel of Armed/Paramilitary Forces who are native of Orissa though the other candidate securing lesser marks under the same category has been given admission. 2. We have heard Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. B. K. Mohanti, learned Advocate General for the State, Mr. J. K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for Union of India, Sri R. K. Dash, learned counsel for the Chairman, J.E.E. and Mr. L. Pradhan, learned counsel for the intervenor. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner had applied and appeared at the Joint Entrance Exami¬nation, 2007 which was held on 27.5.2007 and consequently he was informed about his rank in the medical course as under : “JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION-2007, ORISSA BIJU PATNAIK UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, ORISSA ROURKELA RANK CARD NAME SAMARATH MISHRA Application Number 230506 Roll Number 102220290 Dear Candidate, We are pleased to inform you that you have secured the following rank(s) in Joint Entrance Examination, 2007, Orissa held on May 27, 2007. Rank Information Course : Med Reserve Category: GE GC MI Rank : 570 141 15 Date & Time of 14/07/2007 14/07/2007 14/07/2007 Counselling 5:45 PM 5:45 PM 8:15 AM 4. However, the counselling was done in the month of August, 2007. In Clause 2.1.5 of the brochure, the reservation for the children/widows of personnel of Armed/Paramilitary Forces who are native of Orissa was given as under : “2.1.5. 2% of seats in engineering colleges and 3% seats in Government Medical Colleges in MBBS and BDS courses are reserved for children/widows personnel of Armed/Paramilitary Forces who are native of Orissa. Candidates applying under Military reserved category shall furnish a certificate in the prescribed format provided in this brochure as appendix-IV at the time of counselling. The following prioritization will be followed for filling up the seats reserved under military category as per D.O. No.3457 AS(R)94 dated 3.6.1994 issued by Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Priority-I : Windows/wards of Defence personnel killed inaction. Priority-II : Wards of serving personnel and Ex-Servicemen disabled in action. The following prioritization will be followed for filling up the seats reserved under military category as per D.O. No.3457 AS(R)94 dated 3.6.1994 issued by Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Priority-I : Windows/wards of Defence personnel killed inaction. Priority-II : Wards of serving personnel and Ex-Servicemen disabled in action. Priority-III : Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died in peace time with death attributable to military service. Priority-IV : Wards of Defence personnel disabled in peace time with disability attributable to military services. Priority-V : Wards of Ex-Servicemen personnel and serving personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards. i. Param Vir Chakra ii. Ashok Chakra iii. Sarvottam Yudh Seva Medal iv. Maha Vir Chakra v. Kirti Chakra vi. Shaurya Chakra vii. Yudh Seva Medal viii. Sena, Nau Sena, Vayusena Medal ix. Mention-in-Des Priority-VI : Wards of Ex-Servicemen Priority-VII : Wards of serving personnel Priority-VIII : Wards of Paramilitary personnel. i. Deceased in action ii. Permanently disabled in action. iii. Serving On the day of counselling, a list will be drawn under each priority category and allotment will be made as per the priority category mentioned above.” 5. But when the son of the petitioner appeared for coun¬selling, he was not given admission inter alia on the ground that all the seats under the quota were filled up by children/wards of defence personnel of category VI i.e. the Wards of Ex-Servicemen who have been given 12 seats in the MBBS course and one seat in BDS course. 6. The petitioner has raised his grievance to the effect that once the seats were reserved for Armed Forces or Paramili¬tary Forces, allotment of all the seats to the Ex-servicemen of defence is against the provisions of reservation policy of the State Government. 7. It appears that the reservation for the sons/wards of Armed Forces/personnel including Ex-Servicemen/para-military forces of Orissa was fixed vide Government Order dated 11.2.2003 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition which reads as under: “Government of Orissa Industries Department Letter No.II.III.30/2003.12117 dated 11.2.2003 From Shri R. N. Mishra, Joint Secretary to Govt. To The Chairman J.E.E. (E&M) 2003 and Vice-Chancellor Biju Patnaik University of Technology, Rourkela, Camp, Techno Campus, C.E.T. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Sub :- Reservation of seats for sons/wards of military personnel. To The Chairman J.E.E. (E&M) 2003 and Vice-Chancellor Biju Patnaik University of Technology, Rourkela, Camp, Techno Campus, C.E.T. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Sub :- Reservation of seats for sons/wards of military personnel. Sir, I am directed to say that after careful consideration, Government have been pleased to decide that the reservation of seats for sons/wards of armed forces/persons including ex-serv¬icemen/paramilitary forces of Orissa fixed by Govt. at 2% of the total number of seats in Govt. as well as private Technical Institutions i.e. in Govt. and Private Engineering College/Schools/it is of the State. The implication of the above reservation will be in accord¬ance with D.O. No.3547AS(R)94 dated 3.6.1994 issued by Ministry of Defence, Government of India (copy enclosed) This order supersedes all previous order issued in this regard. You are requested to ensure admission accordingly. Yours faithfully Sd/-Joint Secretary.” 8. The categorization of sons/wards of defence personnel was issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Defence vide D.O. No.3547S(R)94 dated 3.6.1994 which has already been referred to in Clause-2.1.5 of the brochure as quoted above. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced below : “Some Government have provided for some reservation or preference for admission to medical/professional colleges for the wards of defence personnel. It has been noticed that the order of preference differs from State to State and in many States, the preference list does not include wards of Gallantry Award win¬ners, Ex.Servicemen and serving personnel of Armed Forces, there¬by the seats reserved for defence category are not utilized and are transferred to General pool. Though education is a State subject and Universities are autonomous bodies, standardization of preference for admission in different quota is desirable to bring about uniformity in the State/UTs. For the purpose of standardization, the following prioritization is recommended: Priority-I : Widows/wards of Defence personnel killed in action Priority-II : Wards of serving personnel and Ex-Servicemen disabled in action Priority-III : Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died in peace time with death attributable to military service. Priority-IV : Wards of Defence personnel disabled in peace time with disability attributable to military service Priority-V : Wards of Ex-Servicemen personnel and serving personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards. 1. Param Vir Chakra 2. Ashok Chakra 3. Sarvottam Yudh Seva Medal 4. Maha Vir Chakra 5. Kirti Chakra 6. Uttam Yudh Seva Medal 7. Vir Chakra 8. Shaurya Chakra 9. Yudh Seva Medal 10. 1. Param Vir Chakra 2. Ashok Chakra 3. Sarvottam Yudh Seva Medal 4. Maha Vir Chakra 5. Kirti Chakra 6. Uttam Yudh Seva Medal 7. Vir Chakra 8. Shaurya Chakra 9. Yudh Seva Medal 10. Sena, Nau Sena, Vayusena Medal 11. Mention-in-Despatches Priority-VI : Wards of Ex-Servicemen Priority-VII : Wards of serving personnel 9. Therefore, priorities given in the aforesaid letter dated 3.6.1994 are in respect of the wards of defence personnel only and not for any other forces. But in the counter affidavit filed by the Chairman, JEE, Orissa, it has been stated that the son of the petitioner do not come in to the zone for considera¬tion as per procedures adopted and implemented by the opposite parties and that the armed forces and paramilitary forces are not similarly situated although the armed forces work in war field but the para-military forces work for internal security and as per the policy, the paramilitary personnel have been categorized under priority VIII and it includes (i) deceased in action (ii) permanently disabled in action and (iii) serving. 10. In the above regard, Paragraphs-9, 11, 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No.2 i.e. Chairman, Joint Entrance Examination, 2007, Orissa are quoted as under : “9. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-9 of the writ application, the deponent humbly begs to submit that 3% of seats in MBBS and BDS course are reserved for children/widows of personnel of Armed/Paramilitary forces which means seats may be allotted either to Armed or Para-Military forces. 11. That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs-14 and 15 of the writ application, the dependent humbly begs to submit that the son of the petitioner did not come into zone of consid¬eration as per procedures and implemented by the opposite par¬ties. 12. That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs-16, 17 and 18 of he writ application, the deponent humbly begs to submit that the armed forces and the paramilitary forces are not simi¬larly situated although the armed forces are not similarly situ¬ated although the armed forces work in war field but the paramil¬itary forces work for internal security. 13. 12. That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs-16, 17 and 18 of he writ application, the deponent humbly begs to submit that the armed forces and the paramilitary forces are not simi¬larly situated although the armed forces are not similarly situ¬ated although the armed forces work in war field but the paramil¬itary forces work for internal security. 13. That in reply to the averments of the writ application, the deponent humbly begs to submit that as per the policy imple¬mented in accordance with the different priorities as catego¬rized, the para-military personnel have been categorized under priority No.VIII it includes (i) deceased in action (ii) perma¬nently disabled in action and (iii) serving.” 11. Now the first question arises as to whether the Central Reserve Police Force of which the petitioner is a member would come under armed forces or paramilitary forces. In this regard, it is necessary to peruse the preamble of the C.R.P.F. act and other Acts for this purpose. 12. The C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 was enacted replacing the old Crown Representative’s Police Force Law, 1939 providing the organization, control and regulation of the Central Reserve Police Fore by the Central Government for the purpose to provide the constitution and regulation of the Armed Central Reserved Police Force under the category of “any other armed forces raised or maintained by the Dominion” in Paragraph 1 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 came into force on 17.12.1949. Presently the same is in item No.2, List I of 7th Schedule of the Constitution, which reads as under : “Naval, military, air forces; any other armed forces of the Union.” 13. The CRPF is one of the Armed Forces of the Union like BSF, CISF, Assam Rifles, Indo-Tibetan Border Security Force, S.S.B. Security Force and Rapid Action Force. In this regard, Section-3 of the C.R.P.F., Act 1949, is liable to be perused. The same is reproduced as under : “3. Constitution of the Force :- (1) There shall continue to be an armed force maintained by the Central Government and called the Central Reserve Police Force. (2) The Force shall be constituted in such manner, and the members of the Force shall receive such pay, pension and other remuneration, as may be prescribed.” There are also similar provision in the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Central Industrial Security Force, Act, 1968 etc. (2) The Force shall be constituted in such manner, and the members of the Force shall receive such pay, pension and other remuneration, as may be prescribed.” There are also similar provision in the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Central Industrial Security Force, Act, 1968 etc. 14. In the case of Akhilesh Prasad v. Union Territory of Mizoram, AIR 1981 SC 806 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “5. The first question which falls for determination by us is as to whether the appellant was a member of the “Armed Forces of the Union” within the meaning of that expression as occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The expression “Armed Forces” has been defined in clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of the military, naval and air forces, operating as land forces and as including any other armed forces of the Union so operat¬ing. That definition, however, is limited in its application, by the express language of that clause itself, to the interpretation of Section 129 to 132 of the Cr.P.C. and the argument, therefore, advanced in support of the impugned judgment that definition will not govern the interpretation of Section 197 cannot be said to lack plausibility. Nor has it been shown to us that the expression “Armed Forces of the Union” as occurring in Sub-sec. (2) of Section 197, Cr.P.C. is governed by a definition occurring else¬where (either in the Cr.P.C. or in any other statute). In this situation it must be given its ordinary meaning which, it appears to us, would certainly not be limited to the inclusion of only the military, naval and air forces of the Union. In this connec¬tion a reference to the contents of Entry 2 in List I of the Sev¬enth Schedule to the Constitution of India may be made with advantage. They are : “Naval, Military and Air Force; any other Armed Forces of the Union.” The entry clearly envisages armed forces other than the three well known forces of the State, namely the naval, military and air forces. All that remains to be done, therefore, is to find out answers to the following questions : (a) Is the C.R.P.F. a force ? (b) If question (a) is answered in the affirmative, whether C.R.P.F., is an armed force ? All that remains to be done, therefore, is to find out answers to the following questions : (a) Is the C.R.P.F. a force ? (b) If question (a) is answered in the affirmative, whether C.R.P.F., is an armed force ? In our opinion, the answer to both the questions must be given in the affirmative in view of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the C.R.P.F. Act which unfortunately do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. That Sub-section reads thus : “There shall continue to be an Armed Force maintained by the Central Government and called the Central Reserve Police Force.” The Sub-section itself declares in no uncertain terms that the C.R.P.F. is an armed force of the Central Government which is the same thing as saying that it is a part of the ‘Armed Forces of the Union.” We may make it clear, however, that even if the provisions just above extracted were not available our answer to the two questions would still be in the affirmative. The reason given by the learned single Judge for holding a contrary opinion, namely, that the force was “only a reserve force and not a regu¬lar force” by which expression he appears to mean that it was a not a continually operating force does not command our concur¬rence. Just because the C.R.P.F. is a reserve force it does not follow that it is not a regularly operating force and no provi¬sion of the C.R.P.F. Act has been pointed out to us such as may lend support to a contrary view. 5-A. We hold that the C.R.P.F. squarely falls within the expression “Armed Forces of the Union” as used in Sub-section (2) of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.” 15. In view of the above discussion, we have no doubt in our mind that the Central Government Reserve Police Force is an armed Force of the Union like Border Security Force and the CISF. 16. Now we come to the provision of reservation made in paragraph 2.1.5. of the brochure as mentioned above and in the same the reservation of 3% seats in Government Medical Colleges in MBBS and BDS courses are reserved for children/widows of personnel of Armed/Paramilitary Forces who are native of Orissa. 16. Now we come to the provision of reservation made in paragraph 2.1.5. of the brochure as mentioned above and in the same the reservation of 3% seats in Government Medical Colleges in MBBS and BDS courses are reserved for children/widows of personnel of Armed/Paramilitary Forces who are native of Orissa. However, a reference was made to the letter of the Ministry of Defence dated 3.6.1994 quoted above fixing the priority for the wards of Defence personnel. But that does not cover the other armed forces. Therefore, the priority mentioned in the letter dated 3.6.1994 was confined to the defence personnel and not members of other armed forces. However, in the brochure, a prior¬ity has been given to the wards of paramilitary personnel under the category No.VIII but no priority has been mentioned in re¬spect of the wards of other armed forces. Therefore, the son of the petitioner, who is a ward of one of the armed forces i.e. member of Central Reserve Police Force, got no priority and, therefore, for that purpose, it cannot be said that he was not liable to get priority at any place. Hence he was liable to be given equal treatment as given to the defence personnel. We may note here that it is in the domain of the State Government to fix priorities and if the priorities would have been fixed in respect of the wards of other armed forces than defence personnel, the petitioner would have got no point to challenge the same. Since the seats are reserved for armed forces and priorities have been given only to defence personnel and paramilitary forces, in our opinion, the petitioner has every right to challenge the same. Since, the counseling for 2007 is already over, we think it would not be proper for us to disturb the acts already done by the opposite parties in the interest of the studies of the candi¬dates. However, in coming years, the reservation for the chil¬dren/widows of personnel of Armed/Para Military forces who are native of Orissa shall be made in the light of the observations made above. 17. However, in coming years, the reservation for the chil¬dren/widows of personnel of Armed/Para Military forces who are native of Orissa shall be made in the light of the observations made above. 17. We have been informed that the last date of admission is fixed to 30.9.2007 and in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 9.8.2007, the opposite party No.2 i.e. Chairman, Joint Entrance Examination, 2007, Orissa has stated in paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit that one seat is kept reserved. The said paragraph reads as under : “........In obedience to the aforesaid order, the opposite party No.2 has kept one reserved seat, vacancy of which was available on the said date of counselling i.e. 09.08.2007.” 18. Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in case any of the candidates under the quota reserved for the armed forces/paramilitary forces has got less marks than the son of the petitioner in the Joint Entrance Exami¬nation, 2007 and has been given admission, petitioner’s son shall also be given admission in the course in question by 30.9.2007 against the reserved seat kept vacant under the interim orders of this Court. SANJU PANDA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.