Telangana HC Upholds Reservation Policy For Children Of Armed Forces Personnel In Medical Entrance, Which Excluded Children Of CAPF Personnel
The Telangana High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh/ Telangana Unaided Non-minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007 and the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which directed the reservation of 1% seats for...
The Telangana High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh/ Telangana Unaided Non-minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007 and the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which directed the reservation of 1% seats for children of ex-servicemen and service personnel of three wings of Armed forces and who are domiciled in Telangana, without offering the same to the Central Armed Police Force ('CAPF').
The bench comprising Justices Sujoy Paul and Renuka Yara stated that the classification was based on intelligible differentia and thus did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
“The classification is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. There is a clear object sought to be achieved to provide reservation of 1% seats to children of Armed Forces i.e, Army, Navy and Air Force. The basis of classification has a nexus with the object of the classification.”
The petitioners in this case are dependents of a Border Security Force (BSF) Personnel and they appeared for the NEET 2024. The Clause E of the prospectus provides horizontal reservation for special categories wherein 1% of seats were reserved for children of Armed Forces Personnel but this did not include the children of BSF personnel and they should be considered as well.
The ground for challenge to the provisions was that BSF, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) etc., were declared as a part of Central Armed Police Force ('CAPF') which was mentioned in Official Memorandum dated 18.03.2011
The bench deliberated on whether children of CAPF personnel can be treated at par with children of the Armed Forces and was there was a reasonable classification and any intelligible differentia for the same.
To examine the legality of classification, two conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, there must be an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from other left out of the group and secondly the differentia must have a rationale relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law, that is, the basis of classification must have a nexus with the object of classification. Cases such as State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India were referred.
The bench referring to the tests discussed above stated that “it will be clear like noon day that admittedly, the personnel engaged by Army, Navy and Air Force are governed by different set of Acts/Rules and their service conditions are different than the service conditions of BSF/CAPF personnel. The tenure of service of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel is different than the BSF personnel.”
The Petitioners had argued that The Border Security Force Act, 1968 provides the constitution and regulation of the Armed Forces of the union for ensuring the security of the border of India and the matters connected therewith. Section 4 of the BSF Act provides the formation of an Armed Force i.e., BSF for ensuring the security of the borders of India and therefore, based on the term 'Armed Force' being used it was contended that BSF is an Armed Force of the country.
The Court stated that “ The only submission strenuously advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is based on Section 4 of the BSF Act. However, this is no more res integra that if method of recruitment and service conditions are different, a different classification or sub classification does not infringe equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The bench discussed that the conditions of services and tenure of Armed Forces and CAPF are different and 'by no stretch of imagination', both can be considered as a 'homogenous class'. Thus, it cannot be said that if 1% reservation is confined to only three forces, it amounts to dividing a homogeneous class and amounts to creating a class within same class.
The State of Telangana, does provide for reservations to the children of CAPF as well but the courses are different. The court stated that that “Such a decision to provide reservation is based on expert opinions. Merely because in some courses reservation is extended to both categories, neither equality between the two is established nor any enforceable right, is created in favour of the present petitioners.”
The bench ultimately resorted to relying on a 'conjoint reading' of the O.M. and recent order of Government in F.No.13/(4)/Court/2024/D (Res-II), dated 25.02.2025 which was cited by the Respondent depicted that these are administrative orders/executive instructions. The legislative competence for issuing the Rules is not called in question. No administrative orders/executive instructions can be said to be binding de hors the Rules. The respondent's submission that Paramilitary Forces cannot be equated with Armed Forces was accepted.
Case Title: Vangala Vishnu Priya and others vs. The State of Telangana & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION Nos. 26246 and 27045 of 2024
