ORDER 1. The instant writ petition was initially filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to consider her case under Priority-IV for the purpose of 1% reservation for MBBS & BDS Course under NEET (UG), 2021. 2. The petitioner also sought a direction that Priority-VI, as allotted to her, should be declared illegal and bad in the eye of law. 3. The petitioner, later on moved an amendment application and sought permission to challenge the condition laid down in Standard of Procedure (SoP) issued by Kendriya Sainik Board through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. 4. This Court, granted permission to counsel for the petitioner to file amendment application and as such, the amended petition was filed. 5. The petitioner in the amended writ petition has challenged Clause-I of Priority-IV (Non-Eligibility Clause) of the SoP dated 01.07.2020 as illegal and contrary to the right of equality as guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Brief facts, in the nutshell, are that father of the petitioner had served in the Indian Army in The Grenadiers Regiment with effect from 30.05.1987 to 31.05.2017 and during his deployment in OP Rakshak (J & K), he was wounded in an encounter with Anti National Elements in the OP Rakshak (J & K) on 23.03.1992 and was declared as ’Battle Casualty’. 7. The examination process for getting admission in the MBBS Course was undertaken by the respondents and the petitioner being a ’Wards of Defense Personnel’ (hereinafter read as ’WDP’) filled up her examination form and she appeared in the said Examination-NEET UG-2021. 8. The respondents, later on, declared the result and they also mentioned the provision with regard to reservation of 1% seats towards ex-servicemen in the different category, as per information given in the booklet. 9. The petitioner submitted an online application under WDP, Ex-S4 category and accordingly the Authorities-respondents issued the list of candidates for the purpose of document verification and name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.24. 10. The petitioner has pleaded that the counselling process was undertaken by the respondents and the petitioner had appeared before the Counselling Board and showed all the relevant documents, establishing her category under Priority-IV. 11. 10. The petitioner has pleaded that the counselling process was undertaken by the respondents and the petitioner had appeared before the Counselling Board and showed all the relevant documents, establishing her category under Priority-IV. 11. The petitioner has further submitted that the combined merit list of counselling of Round-I for PWD candidates was issued on 22.01.2022 and name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No.23 under Priority - IV category. 12. The petitioner further asserted in the petition that in subsequent list, which was published on 26.01.2022, her name was again placed at Serial No.12 under Priority-IV. 13. The petitioner has pleaded that one S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1508/2022 Aayush Khedar and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. was filed before this Court and this Court on 18.02.2022 had dismissed the petition, as the Court was informed that the Counselling Board has conducted fresh counselling and in the Revised merit list (WDP) Round-I, the petitioners therein were given their proper category. 14. The petitioner has pleaded that subsequently the respondents when prepared the list of eligible candidates, her candidature was not considered in Priority-IV but she was considered in Priority-VI and as such the petitioner has been deprived to get admission in MBBS Course as her name was not in merit list. 15. The grievance raised by the petitioner is in respect of the Priority-IV, which has been assigned in the SoP to different wards of defence personnel. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Rishi Raj Maheshwari submitted that the respondent No.5 while providing Priority-IV to the ’Wards of Disabled in Service and Boarded out with Disability Attributable to Military Service’ have given ’Eligible’ in Part (i) Provided that all Armed Forces Personnel, who were found medically unfit for further service due to disability occurred in service conditions and are invalided out from service as per Section 13(3)III(iii) of the Army Rules, 1954 are in receipt of Disability Pension, consisting of Service Element and Disability Element, are eligible for Priority-IV. 17. Learned counsel submitted that as per Clause-(II) of condition No.9, All Armed Forces Personnel who were found medically unfit for certain duties due to disability occurred in service conditions and are retained in service after being downgraded as lower medical category (LMC) due to disability by the Competent Medical Authorities and subsequently invalided out of service under Army Rule, are held eligible for Priority-IV. 18. 18. Learned counsel submitted that those persons, who have been held ’Not Eligible’ as per Clause-(I), are those persons i.e. Armed Forces Personnel, who are retired/discharged from service on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment or having reached the stage at which discharge may be enforced as per Army Rules 13 3 (III)(i) and entitled to disability element, are not eligible for Priority-IV. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Authorities while issuing the SoP have not kept in mind the conditions of those defence personnel, who have suffered ’Battle Casualty’ but were asked to serve for certain period but later on discharged from service on attaining the age of superannuation but they have been put in Priority-VI. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents while issuing the impugned SoP, have created two artificial classes for depriving the benefits to the ’Wards of Defence Personnel’ and the facts of the present case, clearly reflect that father of the petitioner who suffered ’Battle Casualty’ while in service and as such ’Battle Casualty’ was attributed to service rendered by him and only on account of his continuance in service, would not deprive him from claiming the benefit for his ward under Priority-IV. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the very purpose of giving benefit/reservation to the wards of armed forces personnel will be defeated, if the persons, who suffered causality during service and are continued in the interest of the army and later on retired, should not get the benefit as compared to those persons who are found medically unfit and they are specifically invalided out of service as per Army Rules. 22. Learned counsel submitted that the situation of persons, who are put in Lower Medical Category and suffered ’Battle Casualty’ and still continued in service, should not be put in Lower category as compared to the Priority-IV, which have been assigned to the different eligible persons. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no object which has been kept in mind by the respondents while fixing the Priority for different wards of defence personnel. 24. Learned counsel submitted that so called difference which has been created by the respondents in their SoP, is the artificial difference and no purpose would be achieved by the respondents by making such an artificial discrimination between similarly situated persons. 25. 24. Learned counsel submitted that so called difference which has been created by the respondents in their SoP, is the artificial difference and no purpose would be achieved by the respondents by making such an artificial discrimination between similarly situated persons. 25. Learned counsel submitted that the persons who are discharged from service after suffering casualty while rendering their service in army form a single class and by creating two classes amongst the same class of persons, the respondents have violated the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of D.S.Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 . 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the said judgment, submitted that the respondents have not been able to justify before this Court as what has been their object to make difference between the similarly situated persons and giving different treatment to them under Priority-IV and Priority-VI. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in 2011 (11) SCC 429 . 29. Learned counsel on the strength of the said judgment submitted that the person who is invalided out and released in lower medical category for permanent disability, has to be treated by assessing his disability as per defence personnel/pension regulations of the Army. 30. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.5 Ms.Manjeet Kaur submitted that initially different Government orders were issued from time to time providing reservation/preference to the Wards of Defense Personnel by different States for the purpose of admission to the Medical/Professional/Non-Professional Course. 31. Learned counsel submitted that while preparing the SoP dated 01.07.2020, the Government of India has taken into account the earlier orders issued and in order to streamline and magnify the priorities in proper manner, the SoP was issued. 32. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the eligibility and non eligibility of different persons have been decided, as per the entitlement of different categories of army personnel. 33. 32. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the eligibility and non eligibility of different persons have been decided, as per the entitlement of different categories of army personnel. 33. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court towards the letter dated 21.05.2018, which was issued prior to issuance of SoP and learned counsel has submitted that Priority-I, II, III & IV have been provided to the Wards of those Defence Personnel; who are killed in action, boarded out from service, who died while in service with death attributable to military service and wards of disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service. 34. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Priority VI as per letter dated 21.05.2018 relates to Wards of ExServicemen, however, earlier instructions issued vide letter dated 21.05.2018 were not giving proper description and entitlement and as such there was necessity of issuing SoP dated 01.07.2020. 35. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner cannot claim parity with those Wards of Defense Personnel, who are given Priority-IV. 36. Learned counsel submitted that certain facts are undisputed in the present case, as father of the petitioner has rendered his full service in the Army and he worked from 31.05.1987 to 31.05.2017 earning his full pension. 37. Learned counsel submitted that though father of the petitioner suffered ’Battle Casualty’ in the operation known as Operation Rakshak in J & K in March, 1992, however, father of the petitioner was not invalided out from service and his services were continued with the Authorities and as such, father of the petitioner has earned his full salary while working in Army and later on, retired after attaining the age of superannuation with benefits of pension with disability element 38. Learned counsel for the respondents while justifying the SoP, submitted that the Army Authorities have kept in mind the severity of medical condition of a defence personnel, while in service and those Armed Forces personnel who are medically found fit for further services due to disability and they are in receipt of disability pension, such persons have been held eligible for Priority-IV. 39. 39. Learned counsel further submitted that there are certain cases where Armed Forces Personnel suffered the medical disability while in service and they are retained in service for sometime, and given other jobs suitable to their physical condition and later on, they are invalided out of service before completion of complete service, making them entitled for full pension on their discharge. 40. Learned counsel submitted that there are Armed Personnel who afterwards are declared medically unfit for certain duties but still work for some time and Army Authorities intend to adjust them on a lighter job/task or any other appropriate job but they are not immediately invalided out but later on invalided out from service and as such the rights of wards of these people are protected by making them eligible in Category-IV. 41. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that noneligibility Clause in Priority-IV makes it very clear that those Army Personnel who were retired/discharged from service or having the reached stage at which the discharge will be enforced as per Army Rule 13(3)(III)(i) and entitled to disability element, are not eligible for Priority-IV. 42. Learned counsel submitted that the said clause, which is being challenged by the petitioner, in no manner can be termed as arbitrary clause, as all those Armed Forces Personnel, who have rendered their complete service and later on they are discharged and yet get disability element, can not be eligible for Priority-IV. 43. Learned counsel submitted that the basic purpose of providing such ineligibility to Armed Forces Personnel who rendered their full service is to see that active services rendered by the armed forces personnel results into payment to full salary to them and all other benefits are taken by them. 44. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the distinction which is claimed to be artificial is not correct description of the situation and the Authorities while keeping in mind the eligibility of different persons, who are discharged, invalided out etc., are put in separate categories. 45. 44. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the distinction which is claimed to be artificial is not correct description of the situation and the Authorities while keeping in mind the eligibility of different persons, who are discharged, invalided out etc., are put in separate categories. 45. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner is not altogether ignored for the purpose of granting her reservation and if at initial point of time, she was given Priority-IV for the purpose of reservation, however, later on as per directions of this Court, when SoP was to be followed in proper manner, the consequences were to follow and the Authorities after considering the services particulars of father of the petitioner, found that she is eligible in Priority-VI not in Priority-IV and as such, no fault can be found. 46. Learned counsel for the respondents-State Mr.Harshal Tholia submitted that the exercise which was undertaken by the respondents for giving admission to MBBS candidates including petitioner, was required to be undertaken, as per SoP issued by the respondents. 47. Learned counsel submitted that while undertaking the counselling, the members of Sainik Kalyan Board were present and after considering the relevant facts, they accordingly allotted Priority-VI to ’Wards of different Armed Personnel.’ 48. Learned counsel submitted that the State-Authorities have only followed the entitlement which has been given to the different candidates and as such no illegality has been committed. 49. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 50. The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to validity of eligibility conditions prescribed in Priority-IV and whether non-eligibility condition is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 51. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant clauses of SoP dated 01.07.2020 as under:- "Standard Operating Procedure for Inter-Se Priority for Reservation/Preference to the Wards of Armed Forces Personnel by State/Uts For Admission to Medical/Professional/Non-Professional Courses:- 9. Priority-IV Wards of Disabled in Service and Boarded out with Disability Attributable to Military Service:- Eligible:- (i) All Armed Forces Personnel who were found medically unfit for further service due to disability occurred in service conditions (as mentioned in category ’B’ and ’C’ of Para 4.1 of Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India letter No.1 (2) 97/I/D (Pen-C) dated 31 Jan. of India letter No.1 (2) 97/I/D (Pen-C) dated 31 Jan. 2001 (Appx ’C’) and subsequent amendments) and are invalid out from service as per Army Rule 13 3 III (iii) after having invalid Medical Board and are in receipt of Disability Pension consisting of Service Element and Disability Element as per Para 7 (Appx ’C’) are eligible for Priority-IV. (ii) All Armed Forces Personnel who were found medically unfit for certain duties due to disability occurred in service conditions (as mentioned in category ’B’ ’C’ of para 4.1 of Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India letter No.1(2) 97/I/D (Pen-C) dated 31 Jan 2001 (Appx ’C’) and subsequent amendments) and are retained in service after being downgraded as (LMC) due to disability by the competent medical authorities and subsequently invalided out of service under Army Rule: (aa) 13 3 III (iii) (a) (I) - no sheltered appointment is available in the unit (LMC cases only) (ab) 13 3 III (v) - only on LMC ground which is attributable to or aggravated by military service. (ac) Are in receipt of Disability Pension consisting of Service Element and Disability Element are eligible for Priority-IV. (iii) All Armed Forces Recruits who were invalid out from service as per Army Rule 13 3 IV after having Invalid Medical Board and are granted Medical/Disability Pension and ESM status as per DESW, Ministry of Defence letter 12/1/2005/D (Res) dated 01 Feb 2006 (Appx ’D’) are eligible for Priority-IV. Non-Eligible:- As per letter DESW, MoD letter No.6(1)/2017/D (Res.II) dated 21 May 2018 (Appx ’A’) who should be not entitled to avail the benefits under Priority-IV (i.e. Wards of disabled in service and boarded out from the service with disability Attributable to Military Service) are mentioned below:- (i) All Armed Forces Personnel who were retired/discharged from service on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment or having reached the stage at which discharge may be enforced as per Army Rule 13 3 III (I) and entitled to disability element as per Para 8 (Appx ’C’) are not eligible for Priority-IV. (ii) All Armed Forces Personnel who were retired/discharged from service on completion of period of army service only, there being no vacancy in the Reserve as per Army Rule 13 3 III (ii) are not eligible for Priority-IV (iii) All Armed Forces Personnel Who were retired/discharged from service at his own request before fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment as per Army Rule 13 3 III (iv) are not eligible for Priority-IV. (iv) All Armed Forces Personnel who were retired/discharged from service in any circumstances having not attributable and not aggravated (NANA) shall not be eligible for Priority-IV." 52. This Court on perusal of the eligibility of the candidates in Priority-IV finds that in Category-(I) all those Armed Forces Personnel who are medically unfit for further service due to disability occurring in service and invalided out from service and receiving disability pension, are found eligible. 53. The bare reading of the said clause makes it very clear that there are Armed Personnel who are declared medically unfit for further service and they are required to be invalidated out after Medical Board gives such report about their disability. 54. This Court on reading of the Clause-(II) of eligibility in Priority-IV finds that there are Armed Forces Personnel who are found medically unfit for certain duties due to disability occurred in service and are retained in service after being downgraded as Lower Medical Category (LMC) due to disability assessed by the competent medical authorities and they are specifically invalided out from the service under Army Rules. 55. The said clause makes it very clear that there are Armed Personnel, who are medically unfit for certain duties but still they can continue in the job and the Authorities from time to time assess their medical condition and after assessment of their medical condition, they are put in lower medical category and if they are not found fit/eligible to continue in service, they are invalided out from service. 56. The aforesaid two conditions make it very clear that the armed forces personnel do not render their complete service and they are invalided out and as such they are deprived to work in Army for their complete period and as such they also do not get their salary etc. as their term is shortened by virtue of their disability and they are ineligible to work in army. 57. as their term is shortened by virtue of their disability and they are ineligible to work in army. 57. This Court, on reading the condition of non eligibility, as provided in Priority-IV finds that all armed forces personnel who are retired/discharged from service or having reached the stage at which discharge can be enforced as per Army Rules, are not eligible for Priority-IV. 58. This Court finds that only such Armed Forces Personnel who rendered their complete service/full tenure and they are discharged as per Army Rules have been held ineligible for Priority-IV. 59. This Court finds that completion of full service in the army and attaining superannuation will not confer any right in favour of such persons to claim parity with those persons who have been invalided out before completion of their full tenure. 60. This Court finds that there is a rational principle by providing two different classes of persons for entitlement of Priority-IV. 61. This Court finds that the persons, who have not rendered their complete service, are medically unfit, cannot further render their service or persons who are medically unfit, worked for some time in Army and later on before completion of their full term, they are invalided out, no comparison can be allowed to be drawn between the persons, who rendered their full service and the persons who are not allowed to render their full service. 62. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner has suffered ’Battle Casualty’ and he has also suffered for reason of his placement in Lower Medical Category (LMC) but he was continued in service in the interest of Army and as such the petitioner should not be deprived to get the benefit of Priority-IV, suffice it to say by this Court that case of the petitioner has been considered in Priority-VI, as per her entitlement. 63. This Court is afraid to accept submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Armed Personnel who are invalided out earlier and those persons who are continued or asked to continue in service, till full term should be given same benefit/category. 64. 63. This Court is afraid to accept submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Armed Personnel who are invalided out earlier and those persons who are continued or asked to continue in service, till full term should be given same benefit/category. 64. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that two artificial classes have been created by the respondents in giving treatment to Armed Personnel, this Court finds that there is a reason to provide separate categories to the persons who are invalided out and who complete their full service in Army and as such the reason of providing separate Priority, cannot be termed as arbitrary in any manner. 65. This Court finds that Article 14 of the Constitution of India gives right of ’equality before the law’ or ’equal protection of laws’. It, thus, gives the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. 66.This Court further finds that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. 67. This Court further finds that the classification to be reasonable has to fulfill two tests; (i) It should not be artificial, arbitrary or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class from others left out of it. (ii) The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statue in question. 68. The Apex Court in the case of Binoy Viswam Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2017) 7 SCC 59 , has interpreted the principle of reasonable classification as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 69. The relevant paras of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Binoy Viswam Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) is quoted hereunder:- "100. Article 14, which enshrines the principle of equality as a fundamental right mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It, thus, gives the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. Article 14, which enshrines the principle of equality as a fundamental right mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It, thus, gives the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. In Sri Srinavasa Theatre and Ors. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., this Court explained that the two expressions ’equality before law’ and ’equal protection of law’ do not mean the same thing even if there may be much in common between them. "Equality before law" is a dynamic concept having many facets. One facet is that there shall be no privileged person or class and that one shall be above law. Another facet is "the obligation upon the State to bring about, through the machinery of law, a more equal society... For, equality before law can be predicated meaningfully only in an equal society...". The Court further observed that Article 14 prescribes equality before law. But the fact remains that all persons are not equal by nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore, a mechanical equality before the law may result in injustice. Thus, the guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law does not mean that identically the same Rules of law should be made applicable to all persons in spite of difference in circumstances or conditions (See Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India and Ors.) 101. The varying needs of different classes or Sections of people require differential and separate treatment. The Legislature is required to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations. It must, therefore, necessarily have the power of making laws to attain particular objects and, for that purpose, of distinguishing, selecting and classifying persons and things upon which its laws are to operate. The principle of equality of law, thus, means not that the same law should apply to everyone but that a law should deal alike with all in one class; that there should be an equality of treatment under equal circumstances. It means "that equals should not be treated unlike and unlikes should not be treated alike. Likes should be treated alike. It means "that equals should not be treated unlike and unlikes should not be treated alike. Likes should be treated alike. What follows is that Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the Legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. Classification to be reasonable should fulfill the following two tests: 102.1. should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class from others left out of it. 102.2. The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. 103. Thus, Article 14 in its ambit and sweep involves two facets, viz., it permits reasonable classification which is founded on intelligible differentia and accommodates the practical needs of the society and the differential must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved. Further, it does not allow any kind of arbitrariness and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is the fons juris of our Constitution, the fountainhead of justice. Differential treatment does not per se amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and it violates Article 14 only when there is no reasonable basis and there are several tests to decide whether a classification is reasonable or not and one of the tests will be as to whether it is conducive to the functioning of modern society." 70. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of D.S.Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court was considering the cut off date, which was prescribed for the purpose of grant of pension to the employees and the Apex Court found that no date can be picked up by the Authorities without having any nexus to fix such date for the grant of pension and as such the Apex Court has held that such fixing of date in arbitrary manner, is not justified and the same is illegal. The said judgment is of little assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 71. The reliance placed in the case of K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India and Anr. The said judgment is of little assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 71. The reliance placed in the case of K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union of India and Anr. (supra) to buttress submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Authorities cannot make a distinction between the two categories of persons who have suffered disability while in service or invalided out due to disability, the bare perusal of the said judgment reveals that the issue before the Apex Court was with respect to grant of pension in respect of a person, who suffered permanent disability and he was not assessed properly by the Medical Board. The said judgment is of little assistance to learned counsel for the petitioner. 72. This Court, accordingly finds that the petition does not have any merit and the same is dismissed.