Court Declares 2018 Policy on CW Quota as Rational and Non-Arbitrary, Dismissing Petition for Reclassification
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Vikas Mahajan, has upheld the 2018 policy concerning inter-se priority for reservation under the Children/Widows (CW) category of armed forces personnel. The court dismissed the petition filed by Master Athrava Tripathi, seeking a reclassification under 'Priority-II' for educational concessions in the CW quota. The petitioner had challenged the policy's exclusion of wards of soldiers disabled in action but retained in service from 'Priority-II' benefits.
The petitioners argued that the policy was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by creating an artificial distinction among soldiers disabled in action. They contended that the policy lacked a retrospective clause, which should allow them to benefit from the earlier practices of institutions like the University of Delhi that granted 'Priority-II' status without such exclusions. However, the court found that no such vested rights existed prior to the 2017 and 2018 policies, and legitimate expectation could not arise without a legal basis.
The court emphasized the rationale behind the policy, stating that it aimed to prioritize those who were boarded out due to disability, acknowledging their financial and career disadvantages compared to those who continued to serve. The judgment highlighted that reasonable classification is permissible under Article 14 when it has a rational nexus to the policy's objectives, which in this case, was to compensate for the inability to complete normal service tenure.
The court also dismissed claims of legitimate expectation, citing that expectations not based on sanctioned policy lack legal grounding. The reliance on past practices or demi-official letters that suggested different categorizations was deemed insufficient to challenge the existing policy framework. The court underscored that policy decisions are beyond judicial interference unless proven to be arbitrary or illegal, which was not the case here.
In conclusion, the court ruled that the petitioner's entitlement under the policy is correctly classified as 'Priority-VI', affirming the government's stance on the structured hierarchy of reservation priorities based on service conditions and post-service circumstances.
Bottom Line:
Policy providing inter-se priorities for reservation under CW quota for Armed Forces personnel is not arbitrary and is based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to its objective.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Army Rule 13, Ministry of Defence Policy letters and amendments, Entitlement Rules to Casualty Pensionary Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 1982
Master Athrava Tripathi v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2858645
