Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2614 (RAJ)

Priyanshi v. Union Of India

2022-10-17

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the respondents to grant the petitioner admission in Class-VI (Girls) against the wards of "Defence Personnel" Quota in Sainik School, Jhunjhunu. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner qualified the written examination of All India Sainik School Entrance Examination-2022 (for brevity, "AISSEE-2022) and also cleared the medical examination. Since, her name figured in the second merit list published by the respondents for admission, she was called for document verification on 22.04.2022 whereupon, she appeared on the scheduled date for document verification; but, she has been denied admission stating that she is not entitled for reservation meant for wards of Defence Personnel as her father works as a civil employee in Central Ordnance Depot, Agra. Claiming that since her father is also a "Defence Personnel", the petitioner is entitled for admission in the Sainik School, Jhunjhunu against the reserved quota, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents have, in their reply, submitted that since, only the members of Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air Force constitute "Defence Personnel" for the purpose of quota for their wards for admission in the Sainik School, the petitioner is not entitled for admission as her father does not fall under the aforesaid category. 4. Reiterating the submissions made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her father, being an employee in the Central Ordnance Depot, Agra, a part of defence services, she is entitled for admission in the Sainik School against the quota reserved for wards of Defence Personnel. Inviting attention of this Court towards the identity card issued to her father, learned counsel submits that he has been reckoned therein as a member of "Indian Armed Forces Civilian." Referring to the definition of "Civilian Government Servant" under the Defence Services (Field Service Liability) Rules, 1957 (for brevity, "the Rules of 1957"), he submits that since, he holds a civil post in the Defence Services of the Union specified in Schedule I and can be posted in "Field Service" also, he is a member of Defence Services. He submits that while extending him appointment vide order dated 27.10.2007, a certificate was obtained from him that he would be liable for "Field Services". He submits that while extending him appointment vide order dated 27.10.2007, a certificate was obtained from him that he would be liable for "Field Services". Learned counsel further submits that Defence Services, as defined under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Appeal and Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity, "CCA Rules, 1965") means services under the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence paid out of the Defence Services Estimates and hence, petitioner's father being a member of the Defence Services, as salary to him is being paid out of the Defence Services Estimates, she is entitled for benefit of quota. Learned counsel submits that in absence of definition of "Defence Personnel", the petitioner being daughter of an employee in the Defence Services of the Union of India, is entitled for benefit of reservation quota meant for their wards for admission in the Sainik School. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents may be directed to accord her admission in Class-VI for the Academic Sessions 2022-23 in the Sainik Schook, Jhunjhunu. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inviting attention of this Court towards the various provisions contained in the Information Bulletin issued by the National Testing Agency for admission in the Sainik Schools, would submit that wards of persons working in Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air Force only, are entitled for the benefit of reservation quota. Admitting that the terminology "Defence Personnel" has not been defined anywhere, he submits that from the tenor of the Information Bulletin, it is apparent that wards of civilians working in the Defence Services are not entitled for the benefit of reservation. Learned counsel submits that even the provisions of the Advertisement/Information Brochure have force of law which are required to be adhered as has been held by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Dr. M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission: 2006 (3) CTC 449 . Learned counsel submits that even the provisions of the Advertisement/Information Brochure have force of law which are required to be adhered as has been held by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Dr. M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission: 2006 (3) CTC 449 . Inviting attention of this Court towards Rule 2(c) of the CCA Rules, 1965, learned counsel submits that Central Civil Services and the Central Civil Posts include a Civilian Service or Civilian Post, as the case may be, of the corresponding grade in the Defence Services and merely because father of the petitioner receives salary out of Defence Services Estimates, he cannot be reckoned as "Defence Personnel" for the purpose of benefit of quota in admission. He submits that while, members of Indian Army/, Indian Navy, Indian Air Force, are subject to the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for brevity "the Act of 2007"), the father of the petitioner being a civilian officer in the Defence Services, is governed by the provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for brevity, "the Act of 1985"). Referring to the eligibility criteria for appointment as Lower Division Clerk in the Ordnance Depot, he submits that service rendered by a candidate in the Army/Navy/Air Force has to be deducted from the actual age for the purpose of determination of eligibility of a candidate qua age criteria. Learned counsel would, therefore, submit that it is apparent that father of the petitioner being a civilian employee in the Ordnance Depot, cannot be reckoned as "Defence Personnel" and the petitioner is not entitled for admission against the quota reserved for wards of Defence Personnel. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel relied upon a judgement dated 16.01.2020 of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Union of India & Ors. v. Brig. Balbir Singh (Retd.): Civil Appeal No.337/2020 (@ Diary No.32143/2016). He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Broadly, the factual aspect of the case is not under dispute. The sole question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for admission in the Sainik School against the quota reserved for wards of "Defence Personnel" as her father happens to be an employee in the Central Ordnance Depot, Agra. Considered. 7. Broadly, the factual aspect of the case is not under dispute. The sole question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for admission in the Sainik School against the quota reserved for wards of "Defence Personnel" as her father happens to be an employee in the Central Ordnance Depot, Agra. To resolve the aforesaid controversy, salient features of the Information Bulletin for All India Sainik School Entrance Examination-2022 are being referred to as hereinunder:- 8. Clause 5.2 deals with reservation in the admission. Its relevant provision reads as under:- "Out of the balance 50.50% of the seats in the Home State/UT and Other States/UT quota, 25% of the seats are reserved for the wards of defence personnel and ex- servicemen." 9. Indisputably, "Defence Personnel" is nowhere defined; either in the Information Bulletin or otherwise. 10. Clause 6 of the Information Bulletin contains instructions for filing online application form. It provides that under the Step III, documents including the certificate of service (for defence category-serving) has to be uploaded. Appendix VIII of the Information Bulletin is as under:- "APPENDIX VIII FORMAT OF THE SERVING CERTIFICATE FOR SERVING DEFENCE CATEGORY PERSONNEL) Date This is to certify that No..........Rank................Name........Father/Mother of.............is currently in service in the..............(Indian Army/Indian Navy/Indian Air Force) and his /her address of residence is as mentioned below: Place: Signature of the Competent Authority (Ex- servicemen are required to submit relevant proof from the Pension Payment Order or PPO" 11. Thus, from the aforesaid format of serving certificate, it is reflected that wards of persons working only in Indian Army/Indian Navy/Indian Air Force are entitled for admission against the quota reserved and not of other employees. The aforesaid proposition stands fortified from the category certificate required at the time of admission as is reflected from the second merit list placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure 9, which provides as under:- "8. Category Certificate- Parents have to furnish original as well as photocopy of the documents mentioned below as applicable to them:- (a)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (b)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (c) Service Personnel (Defence)- Full particulars of service with rank and no. duly verified by the Commanding Officer." 12. The aforesaid requirement is in tune with format of Serving Certificate as provided under Appendix VIII. Category Certificate- Parents have to furnish original as well as photocopy of the documents mentioned below as applicable to them:- (a)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (b)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (c) Service Personnel (Defence)- Full particulars of service with rank and no. duly verified by the Commanding Officer." 12. The aforesaid requirement is in tune with format of Serving Certificate as provided under Appendix VIII. Indisputably, the Serving Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner does not contain his rank, obviously, for that reason that he does not hold any rank either in the Indian Army or Indian Navy or Indian Air Force. 13. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner being a member of Defence Services as defined under Rule 2(e) of the CCA Rules, 1965 and being a Civilian Government Servant liable for Field Service under the Rules of 1957, should be reckoned as a Defence Personnel, cannot be countenanced. Rule 2(e) of the CCA Rule, 1965 reads as under:- "(e) "Defence Services" means services under the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence, paid out of the Defence Services Estimates, and not subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950);" 14. Thus, from the aforesaid definition, it is apparent that persons who are subjected to Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950, are not member of "Defence Services" under the CCA Rules, 1965 vice-versa, the members of Defence Services under the Rules of 1965 are not members of the three Forces. Further, its Rule 2(c) provides as under:- "(c) "Central Civil Service and Central Civil Post" includes a civilian service or civilian post, as the case may be, of the corresponding Group in the Defence Services;" Similarly, Rule 1 (2) of the Rules of 1957 provides that these rules shall apply to civilian government servants in the defence services of the Union of India in the categories specified in Schedule I. The eligibility criteria for appointment as LDC, the post on which father of the petitioner is working in the Ordnance Depot, service rendered in Army/Navy/Air Force has to be deducted for determination of age. Further, the employees subject to Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950, are amenable to the Act of 2007 whereas, father of the petitioner is governed by the Act of 1985, Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of which provides as under:- Section 14- Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority of Tribunals- "(iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence," From the conspectus of aforesaid statutory provisions, a clear picture which emerges is that there is a distinction in between the members of Defence Services and the Defence Personnel and members of Defence Services are not at same pedestal with "Defence Personnel" for the benefit of quota for admission in Sainik School. Indisputably, father of the petitioner is a civil member in the Defence Services and is not a member of Indian Army/Indian Navy or Indian Air Force so as to entitle the petitioner the benefit of quota meant for wards of defence personnel for admission in the Sainik School. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Union of India & Ors. (supra), held as under:- "The Army Officers forming a separate class in comparison to the civilian employees is a point which is no more res integra. In Confederation of Ex. Servicemen Associations (supra) and Union of India V. Capt. Gurdev Singh this Court has clearly laid down that the classification of military personnel as different class from non-military personnel is permissible and valid. The submissions made on behalf of the Appellant that the Army Officers serving in the MES as Chief Engineers continue to get the same benefits and perks attached to the post of Brigadier has not been controverted by the Respondent. Though there is not dispute that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable even to tenure or temporary appointments, in view of the IDSE Rules which govern the grade pay of the post of the Chief Engineer, Senior Administrative Grade, we are of the opinion that the Respondent is not entitled to claim parity with members of the IDSE. The validity of the IDSE Rules has not been challenged by the Respondent. The validity of the IDSE Rules has not been challenged by the Respondent. We do not see any force in the submission of the Respondent that grade pay should be made available to all persons working as Chief Engineers irrespective of the source. We are in agreement with the Appellants that the Respondent continues to be a Brigadier for all practical purposes and is entitled for the benefits attached to the post of Brigadier, irrespective of the place and post in which he works." 15. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion in the backdrop of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court of India is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. 16. In view of the aforesaid order, no order is required to be passed on the application no.1/2022 filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of Ms.Nitigya Dangi as respondent No.4. 17. The application is also dismissed accordingly.