JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - This petition has been filed with the prayer that the notification dated 21st May, 2018 issued by the Department of Exservicemen Welfare, Government of India, Ministry of Defence (hereafter 'Ministry of Defence') to the extent it does not include the wards of ex-servicemen disabled in service and boarded out with disability aggravated by Military Service under its priority No. IV be quashed and set-aside. It has further been prayed that consequently the Ministry of Defence be directed to include the wards of ex-servicemen disabled in service and boarded out with disability aggravated by military service in priority IV of the Notification dated 21st May, 2018 for grant of benefit of reservation for wards of Defence Personnel boarded out from service with disability in non battle casualty area. 2. The petitioner's father Ex. Subedar Rati Ram Khatik was medically boarded out from military service with 30% disability of bronchial asthma found to have been aggravated by military service. He was consequently granted disability pension under Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for Indian Army, 1961. The petitioner wrote the NEET UG 2019 examination under the Wards of Defence Personnel Category seeking admission to a seat in that quota. An eligibility certificate is stated to have been issued in her favour by the District Soldier Welfare Officer, Alwar, reflecting her eligibility to be treated as ward of Defence Personnel under Priority IV of the Circular dated 21st May, 2018 for admission in the MBBS / BDS Courses both against the Central Quota seats and the State quota seats. The said certificate of eligibility has been overlooked by the NEET UG Medical and Dental Admission / Counselling Board, 2019 (Admission Board) and the petitioner has not been found entitled to Priority IV but to Priority VI of the Circular dated 21st May, 2018. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved of so being found and treated by the Admission Board. Her case is that the Circular dated 21st May 2018 in confining priority IV for the wards of defence personnel only with disability attributable to military service for admission in the reserve quota for admissions into MBBS / BDS courses is wholly arbitrary. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved of so being found and treated by the Admission Board. Her case is that the Circular dated 21st May 2018 in confining priority IV for the wards of defence personnel only with disability attributable to military service for admission in the reserve quota for admissions into MBBS / BDS courses is wholly arbitrary. It has been submitted that as disability pension is given to ex-servicemen whether the disability is attributable to military service or aggravated thereby their wards should be similarly treated for the purposes of admissions into MBBS / BDS courses and be given similar priority. It has been submitted that classification between disability attributable to military service on the one hand and disability aggravated by military service on the other for the purpose of priorities for admission to MBBS / BDS is not intelligible nor does it have any nexus to the object to be achieved and therefore cannot sustain. Resultantly this petition be allowed and the reliefs prayed for be granted by directing that wards of military personnel boarded out of service for reason of disability aggravated by military service be treated at par with wards of military personnel boarded out for disability attributable to military service and be covered by Priority IV of the Circular dated 21st May, 2018. 4. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj appears for UOI and Mr. Harshal Tholia appears for Dr. VB Sharma, AAG on behalf of the Admission Board. They have submitted that for one this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of the petitioner both approbating and reprobating inasmuch she has with full knowledge of the priorities notified on 21.5.2018 for admissions of wards of defence personnel in the quota reserved for them participated in the selection process for admission into MBBS / BDS course 2019-2020 and then having failed to be admitted now seeks to challenge Priority IV of the Circular as an after-thought in this petition filed belatedly on 18.7.2019. It has been submitted that instructions for the admissions of wards of defence personnel to MBBS / BDS 2019- 2020 seeking a seat in the quota reserved for them in the 2019- 2020 MBBS / BDS were circulated in early November, 2018 before NEET examination the last date for submission of applications wherein was first upto 30.11.2018 and then extended to 7.12.2018. The priority IV relating to wards of disabled exservicemen boarded out with disability attributable to military service was very well known to the petitioner at the relevant time. She did not lay a challenge thereto and took a chance at the MBBS / BDS admission 2019-2020 as a ward of defence personnel. Having failed to find a place in the first round of counselling which ended on 5.7.2019, she has now approached this Court on 18.7.2019. 5. It has been submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi Versus State of Bihar & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 576 has held that belated challenges by those unsuccessful after having taken a chance at an examination would not be permissible. It was specifically held that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be permitted to be invoked after the petitioner had written the examination in terms of well published instructions and having failed thereat seeks to challenge any of the conditions / instructions in relation to such examination. 6. Mr. Harshal Tholia submitted that besides the above ground for the petition's dismissal, it also deserves dismissal for the reason that the issue agitated in this petition is covered on all fours by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka (Miss) and Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 592 of 2006) decided on 5th September, 2006. In the aforesaid Division Bench appeal, the Court was also seized of the issue with regard to alleged discrimination between the wards of ex-servicemen boarded out for reason of disability attributable to military service on the one hand and those boarded out for reason of disability aggravated by military service on the other. He submitted that the Division Bench negated the challenge at the instance of appellant before it and upheld the classification between disability attributed to military service and disability aggravated by military service. Mr. Harshal Tholia also submitted that even otherwise the disability certificate dated 19.6.2019 issued to the petitioner by the District Soldier Welfare Officer, Alwar is not counter-signed by the OIC, Records, which was mandatorily required in terms of instructions for applicants applying for defence seats in Medical / Dental Colleges under the Ministry of Defence quota. Mr. Harshal Tholia also submitted that even otherwise the disability certificate dated 19.6.2019 issued to the petitioner by the District Soldier Welfare Officer, Alwar is not counter-signed by the OIC, Records, which was mandatorily required in terms of instructions for applicants applying for defence seats in Medical / Dental Colleges under the Ministry of Defence quota. Reference in this regard was made to clause 2(n) of the said instructions dated 21.5.2018 as under: "All eligibility certificate of ESM Community will be recommended by the ZSWOs / RSBs of the individual soldier / airmen / sailor / JCOs / Officers and countersigned by the OIC Records. Under Priority V, VII, VIII & IX in case of Serving personnel only the eligibility certificate can be signed by the CO/ OC Unit or OIC Records." 7. It has been submitted that a bare look at the eligibility certificate (Annexure-3 to the petition) shows that the petitioner's eligibility certificate was not counter-signed by the OIC Records. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. Under Regulation 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part-1), Appendix-II deals with Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1982'). Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 1982 state that a disease is considered "attributable to military service" if the onset of the same is determined or contributed by service factors, and is considered "aggravated by military service" in the event it is established that conditions of Military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent course of the disease. Thus a clear distinction and resultant classification between disability attributable to military service on one hand and disability aggravated by military service on the other hand has been made. 10. It is well settled that concessions given by the competent authority have to be strictly construed without any alteration or variation thereof. The priorities under the Circular dated 21.5.2018 have to be so construed and they cannot be tinkered with on unsustainable broad brush ground of discrimination without more. Seeking equivalence in regard to Priority IV between disability attributable to military service as specifically provided in the circular dated 21.5.2018 and that aggravated by military service cannot be loosely permitted on analogy of the pension rules. Seeking equivalence in regard to Priority IV between disability attributable to military service as specifically provided in the circular dated 21.5.2018 and that aggravated by military service cannot be loosely permitted on analogy of the pension rules. The instructions of 21.5.2018 were available in the public domain to all including the petitioner much prior to holding the NEET UG examination, 2019. They were not yet then challenged. This petition has been now belatedly filed on 18.7.2019 after the petitioner failed to find a place in the first round of counselling which ended on 5.7.2019. The Circular dated 21st May, 2018 provides priority IV only for the wards of exservicemen with disability attributable to military service. That is reflective of the policy of the Ministry of Defence classifying separately for good cause whose disability is attributable to military service and whose is aggravated by it. By no interpretative process can this provision be re-written and expanded to include other disabled ex-servicemen in-service or boarded out, whose disability was not attributable to military service but aggravated by such service. This view of the court also finds safe harbour in and is buttressed by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka (Miss) and Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors. (supra) where in respect of accidental issue, it was held that disability attributable to military service cannot be equated with disability aggravated by military service and the classification of the two is wholly sustainable and not vitiated by invidious discrimination in contravention to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Aside of the aforesaid, as rightly submitted by Mr. Harshal Tholia, the eligibility certificate dated 19.6.2019 (Annexure-3 to the petition) to which the annexed proforma shows the disability of the petitioner's father i.e. Bronchial Asthma as aggravated and not attributable to Military service, is even otherwise in terms of the instructions dated 21st May, 2018 invalid inasmuch as it is not in compliant with Clause 2(n) of the aforesaid instructions for the reason of it not being counter-signed by the IOC Records - as was otherwise required. Besides, it has been brought to the notice of the court in the course of arguments and not controverted by counsel for the petitioner that Priority IV, in issue, for the wards of those disabled in-service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service to the exclusion of those whose disability was aggravated by military service, has been operative since 1992. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.