ORDER : 1. The instant petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers: “(a) The operation of SOP (Annex-8) issued by respondent no. 6 which is in contravention to the guidelines laid down by respondent no. 1 & 2 may be set aside and quashed as it contravene the basis root for the welfare of Wards of Defence Personnel (WDP) in various welfare schemes; or in alternate inclusion of words “or aggrevated” should be expunged. (b) The provisional list dated 27/07/2023, 31/07/2023 and final allotment list dated 03/08/2023 be set aside and new list be prepared afresh after removing the anomaly created by impugned Annexure-8. (c) The respondents who has taken admission to the Medical College Seats under WDP category in violation of Rule, Regulation and Guidelines, their admission be scrapped and the seat is allotted to the petitioner. (d) The respondents be directed to mention Defence Personnel Identification number in its originality or in coded way so that misuse of such welfare measures is avoided and specific explanation from the concerned authority be taken that how the name of candidates appeared in final list when their names were not in the provisional list published by the same authority. (e) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (f) Cost of writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. The factual narrative of the instant matter is that the petitioner had qualified his Senior Secondary School Examination with Physics, Chemistry, Biology, English and Hindi as his subjects and has thereafter, appeared in NEET-2021 Examination and was allotted Bharatpur Medical College. Howsoever, due to reshuffling on the basis of the impugned Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter, referred to as SOP) (Annexure-8), the petitioner’s candidature was ousted. Aggrieved of which the petitioner had filed a petition in the year 2022, bearing number as SBCWP No. 6259/2022 titled as Nikhil Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors. Vide order dated 10.04.2023 the said writ petition was dismissed. Subsequently the petitioner preferred a Special Appeal, registered as DBSAW No. 457/2023 titled as Nikhil Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors. which by order dated 30.05.2023 was dismissed. 3. Thereafter, with great zeal the petitioner appeared in NEET-2022 Examination. Union of India & Ors. Vide order dated 10.04.2023 the said writ petition was dismissed. Subsequently the petitioner preferred a Special Appeal, registered as DBSAW No. 457/2023 titled as Nikhil Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors. which by order dated 30.05.2023 was dismissed. 3. Thereafter, with great zeal the petitioner appeared in NEET-2022 Examination. Nevertheless, the petitioner failed to secure a seat under the ‘Wards of Defense Personnel’ (hereinafter, referred as WDP) category, for the reason that the petitioner had wrongly claimed the said benefit twice, which is per se outlawed. Again, the petitioner filed a petition registered as SBCWP No. 16783/2022, which was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. The cause of action resulting to the instant petition arose when the National Testing Agency issued a notice for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-2023 (hereinafter, referred to as NEET-2023) inviting applications for under-graduate medical course. The petitioner applied under the OBC (NCL) category. The petitioner had filled his form under the said category as the father of the petitioner is serving the Indian Army ever-since 28.04.1998 and had received gallantry award for his excellent service. 5. The result qua the said NEET-2023 Examination was declared on 13.06.2023, wherein, the petitioner scored 315 marks out of the total 720 marks, and secured AIR 385000 and category rank 170805 (Annexure-3). With great expectations and under the belief that the petitioner’s candidature ought to be considered under the 1% reserved seats for the WOP candidates, the petitioner prepared to appear in the counseling that was scheduled on 29.07.2023. 6. In this backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner averred that the petitioner belong to the category/priority Exs 5/priority V, as per the reservation policy clause (e) of the Information Booklet issued by Govt. of Rajasthan for NEET-UG Admission and Counseling, 2023 (Annexure-4). For the sake of convenience the relevant provision is reproduced herein-below: “(e) 1% seats (in Government medical colleges/Govt. Society Medical Colleges (Raj-MES)/RUHS CMS/EXIC MC/RUHS CDS) after excluding the seats of sub clauses (a), (b) are reserved horizontally on priority cum merit for the natural born (not adopted) sons/daughters of Defence personnel (serving/retired) of Rajasthan Origin and paramilitary personnel (serving/retired) of Rajasthan origin (in ration 3:1, 50% out of these reserved seats shall be reserved for girls, unfilled seats will be reverted to boys category. As per the Kendriya Sainik Kalyan Board, the defence seat is admissible for only one member of the family, once in lifetime. Only wards of Defence Personnel from Army, Air Forces & Navy from Serial 1 to 9 below are eligible for the scheme. As per letter no. 6(1)/2017/D (Res. II) dated 19.05.2017 and its subsequent amendments in Nov. 2017 and 21.05.2018 issued by Dept. of Ex-serviceman Welfare of Govt. of India and SOP letter no. 370/Adm/MBBS/BDS/c, dated 01.07.2020 of Kendriya Sainik Kalyan Board, Ministry of Defense, Govt. of India, priority order (certificate proforma 1) for Defence personnel of Rajasthan origin will be as follows: 1. Widows/Wards of Defence Personnel killed in action. 2. Wards of those Disabled in action and boarded out from service. 3. Widows/Wards of those Defence personnel who died while in service with death attributable to military service. 4. Wards of those Disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service. 5. Wards of ex-service men and serving personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Award. 6. Wards of ex-service men. 7. Wives of (i) defence personnel killed in action and boarded out from service. (ii) defence personnel disabled in service and boarded out with disability attributable to military service (iii) ex-servicemen and serving personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Award. 8. Wards of serving personnel. 9. Wives of serving personnel. As per the letter no. F25/SKV/2022/13423-30 dated 13.10.2022 of Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, Govt. of Rajasthan, the para-military seat is admissible for only one member of the Family once in life time. According to the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs, only wards of Para-military personnel from serial 1 to 3 below are eligible for the scheme. Priority order (certificate proforma 2) for Para-military personnel of Rajasthan origin, will be as follows: 1. Wards/Widows/Wives of those paramilitary personnel killed in action. 2. Wards/Widows/Wives of those paramilitary personnel permanently disabled in action and boarded out from service. 3. Wards of All serving and retired personnel.” 7. However, the petitioner’s name was not reflected in the final allotment list dated 03.08.2023. It was further averred that the petitioner was under an apprehension that his candidature under ‘category V’ of the Information Booklet was not considered due to wrong interpretation, additionally, the application of the impugned SOP, made several other candidates to be considered in category IV, to which they do not belong. It was further averred that the petitioner was under an apprehension that his candidature under ‘category V’ of the Information Booklet was not considered due to wrong interpretation, additionally, the application of the impugned SOP, made several other candidates to be considered in category IV, to which they do not belong. Resultantly, due to the application of the impugned SOP, the petitioner’s candidature was ousted under the said category i.e. priority V. The relevant portion from the SOP dated 01.07.2020, by which the controversy of the instant matter arose is reproduced herein-below: “PRIORITY-IV Wards of Disabled in Service and Boarded out with Disability Attributable to Military Service. Eligible: (i) (ii) (aa) (ab) 13 3 III (v) - only on LMC ground which is attributable to or aggravated by military service.” 8. After, doing a comparative analysis the petitioner concluded that the said ambiguity was created by the SOP dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure-8), issued by the respondent No. 6. Moreover, the said SOP is in contravention to the settled provisions/guidelines issued by respondent No. 1 and 2. Withal, the point of contention was that inclusion of the words ‘or aggravated’ in the afore-reproduced portion has catastrophic effect on the petitioners candidature qua the said reservation. 9. Learned counsel representing the petitioner had further contended that because the respondents did not followed the requisite guidelines/directions and due to the anomaly and ambiguity that is created by way of issuing the impugned SOP (Annexure-8) by respondent no. 6 which overlapped and circumvented the guiding principles issued by the respondent no. 1 and 2, the petitioner was ousted for no valid reasoning. 10. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in (2019) 4 SCT 659 titled as The Secretary, Government of India & Ors. vs. Dharambir Singh. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had vehemently opposed the contentions averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and had submitted that the SOP dated 01.07.2020 is framed by respondent no. 6 i.e. Kendriya Sainik Board, with the aim to amplify each priority as mentioned in letter dated 19.05.2017 and its subsequent amendment dated 21.05.2018. 12. At this juncture, learned counsel had placed reliance upon the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure wherein, paragraph 6.1 and 6.2 categorically provides for integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defense and for attached and sub-ordinate officers respectively. 12. At this juncture, learned counsel had placed reliance upon the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure wherein, paragraph 6.1 and 6.2 categorically provides for integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defense and for attached and sub-ordinate officers respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondent No. 6 is proximately attached to the office of department of Ex-Servicemen. Hence, Kendriya Sainik Board- respondent No. 6 is responsible for providing detailed executive directions required in implementation of the policies enforced by the department of Ex-Servicemen. 13. Ergo, vide letter dated 21.05.2018 the Ministry of Defense, Department of Ex-Servicemen welfare had giving a detailed direction/ SOP qua implementation of the inter se priorities amongst various wards of Army personnel. Hence, the said SOP is sans any illegalities and anomalies. The relevant portion from the said SOP is reproduced herein-below: “1. It is intimated that the Central/State Universities/Institutions/Colleges were requested to make provision for reservation for widows/wives/wards of Armed Forces personnel and ESM to fill up the reserved seats strictly in accordance with priorities laid down by Ministry of Defence (MoD) for reservations of seats under the defence category. It was generally felt that the Central/State Universities/Institutions/Colleges were not provide reservations for wards of defence personnel and also not filling seats as per priorities. It is also observed that the office bearance of ZSB/RSBs/Record offices were also facing difficulties while issuing Priority/Educational concession certificate to the wards of defence personnel. 2. Keeping in mind the difficulties as faced by the RO/ZSB/RSBs, an SOP on the subject has been framed by KSB Sectt for easy transparency in documentation for issuing Priority/Educational concession certificate to the wards of defence personnel at Central/State Universities/Institutions/Colleges and same is forwarded herewith for strictly implementation at your end.” 14. Learned counsel representing the respondents has placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in 2002 (2) SCC 561 titled as Ashutosh Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and has averred that it is a mandatory provision to ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object, in order to assail the same and consider it arbitrary and discriminatory. Withal, the interpretation of any document that falls under the ambit of public domain shall be made by the undersigning authority/author of the same i.e. respondents, in the matter in hand. 15. Heard and considered. 16. Withal, the interpretation of any document that falls under the ambit of public domain shall be made by the undersigning authority/author of the same i.e. respondents, in the matter in hand. 15. Heard and considered. 16. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, considering the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the arguments averred by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court at this juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts: 16.1 That the petitioner prior to the latest attempt also appeared in the NEET-2021 and NEET-2022 Examination. However, the said attempts were abortive towards him, and aggrieved of which two erstwhile petitions were filed. Nevertheless, devoid of merit, they were dismissed. 16.1. That the father of the petitioner is serving the Indian Army ever-since 28.04.1998, and is a gallantry awardee. 16.2. That the petitioner considers himself eligible under the category/priority Exs 5/ priority V, as per the reservation policy clause (e) of the Information Booklet issued by Govt. of Rajasthan for NEET-UG Admission and Counseling, 2023 (Annexure-4). 17. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, juxtaposing the averments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides; taking note of the provisions enumerated under the SOP dated 01.07.2020 and the letter dated 21.05.2018, and other relevant documents placed on record, this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the instant petition, for the reasons stated herein-below: 17.1 That the pivotal aim and object of the said SOP is to amplify each of the priority mentioned in the letter dated 19.05.2017 and its subsequent amendment in November, 2017 and 21.05.2018 (Appendix ‘A’) in detail, in light of various Army orders, instructions, and letters issued by the government of India, Ministry of Defense, laying down the conditions of serving/retiring/authorizing/pension in the Armed Forces. 17.2 That the letter dated 21.05.2018 categorically states that with the approval of Hon’ble Raksha Mantri, the directions expounded therein, supersedes the erstwhile letters dated 19.05.2017 and 30.11.2017. 17.3 That the ratio encapsulated in Ashutosh Gupta (Supra) categorically states that when the law is challenged as violative of Article 14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statue and the object intended to be achieved by it. 17.3 That the ratio encapsulated in Ashutosh Gupta (Supra) categorically states that when the law is challenged as violative of Article 14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statue and the object intended to be achieved by it. Only upon having ascertained the policy and the object, the Court has to apply a dual test in examining the validity; the test being, whether the classification is rational and based upon an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons that are supposed to be grouped together from others, and whether the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with its avowed policy and objects. Considering the aforementioned this Court is of the opinion that in the matter in hand, the impugned SOP is sans any irregularity and zilch discrimination is caused qua the petitioner. It is explicitly clear the criteria qua which the candidates shall be considered under various categories, is meticulously enunciated in the SOP dated 01.07.2020, which is to be read harmoniously with the letter dated 21.05.2018. The relevant extract from the afore-cited ratio is reproduced herein-below: “6. The concept of equality before law does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst all which May be a physical impossibility. All that, Article 14 guarantees is the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform. Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same. It is true that Article 14 enjoins that the people similarly situated should be treated similarly but what amount of dissimilarity would make the people dis-entitle to be treated equally is rather a vexed question. A Legislature, which has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must of necessity, have the power of making special laws, to attain particular objects; and for that purpose it must have large powers of selection or classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not 'per se' amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not 'per se' amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. The State has always the power to make classification on a basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject to be dealt with. In order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely: (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are left out of the group and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act. When a law is challenged as violative of Article 14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieved by it. Having ascertained the policy and the object of the Act, the Court has to apply a dual test in examining the validity, the test being, whether the classification is rational and based upon an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from others that are left out of the group, and whether the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with its avowed policy and objects. In order that a law may be struck down under this Article, the inequality must arise under the same piece of legislation or under the same set of laws which have to be treated together as one enactment. Inequality resulting from two different enactments made by two different authorities in relation to the same subject will not be liable to attack under Article 14. It is well settled that Article 14 does not require that the legislative classification should be scientifically or logically perfect. If we examine the impugned provisions of the Emergency Recruitment Rules from the aforesaid standpoint the conclusion is irresistible that the aforesaid set of Rules have been framed for a specific recruitment to the Administrative Service. The provision of Section 25 dealing with the seniority has been specifically designed to meet all situations under which people from different walks of life could be recruited to the Rajasthan Administrative Service under the Emergency Recruitment Rules. The provision of Section 25 dealing with the seniority has been specifically designed to meet all situations under which people from different walks of life could be recruited to the Rajasthan Administrative Service under the Emergency Recruitment Rules. The lawmaking authority must be presumed to have examined pros and cons in making the aforesaid provision for seniority in the cadre which is in pari materia with similar provisions for recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service and, therefore, it is difficult for us to hold that the aforesaid provision is discriminatory in nature.” 17.4 That upon a perusal of the reply filed by the respondents it is noted that the petitioner’s candidature is already considered under the provisional WDP merit list dated 31.07.2023, (at serial no. 33) under the category of EXS-5/Priority-V. However, considering the merit scored, no Government Medical College is allotted to the petitioner (Annexure- R/1). 18. In summation of the aforementioned, it can be inferred that considering the aim and object of the said SOP i.e. to amplify each priority as mentioned in the letter dated 19.05.2017; the letter dated 21.05.2018 whereby, the approval of Hon’ble Raksha Mantri is granted; specially taking note of the ratio encapsulated in Ashutosh Gupta (Supra) and the fact that the petitioner’s candidature has already been considered howsoever, due to the merit scored, no seat is allotted to the petitioner this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the instant petition. 19. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.