A recent petition filed before the Delhi High Court challenged the reservation policy of Delhi University regarding the admission to undergraduate medical courses under the Children/Widows of Armed Forces Personnel (CW) category. The petitioner, Ms. Anukriti Arya, contended that the inclusion of wards and widows of Para-Military and Police Personnel in the CW category was unlawful and diluted the original intent of the reservation policy. The case highlights the ongoing debate over the scope of reservations and the role of government policies in shaping university admission guidelines.
Factual Background:
The petitioner, Ms. Arya, a daughter of an Ex-Serviceman, had appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2024 and was seeking admission to the MBBS course at Delhi University. According to the Information Bulletin for undergraduate admissions, the university provided a quota for children and widows of Armed Forces personnel under the CW category. However, the bulletin included widows and wards of Para-Military and Police Personnel in receipt of Gallantry Awards in the CW category, which prompted the petition.
Ms. Arya argued that the CW category should be reserved solely for the children and widows of Armed Forces personnel, excluding Para-Military and Police Personnel, as the latter are under the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Ministry of Defence. The petitioner sought the exclusion of these categories from the CW category to ensure the reserved seats served their original purpose.
The University’s Stand:
In response, the University defended its reservation policy, asserting that the inclusion of Para-Military and Police Personnel had been implemented based on the directions from both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs. The University maintained that it had followed this policy consistently since 2009 and that it had been included in official communications and letters from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The University also argued that the petitioner had submitted her application under the knowledge of these reservation guidelines and had accepted the terms of admission when she applied.
Legal Submissions and Arguments:
The petitioner’s legal counsel argued that the inclusion of Para-Military and Police Personnel under the CW category was a misclassification and violated the intent of the reservation policy, which should benefit only the families of Armed Forces personnel. Furthermore, it was contended that the University lacked the authority to unilaterally modify the reservation criteria, as such decisions should be made by the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, under the Ministry of Defence.
On the other hand, the University’s counsel submitted that the policy was formulated based on instructions from both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs. The university cited earlier communications from 2009 and 2018 to justify its stance, asserting that the inclusion of Para-Military and Police Personnel had been an established practice for years.
Court’s Analysis and Findings:
The court noted that the University’s reservation policy had evolved in compliance with the directives of both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs. While the petitioner challenged the inclusion of Para-Military and Police Personnel, the court observed that this inclusion had been a consistent practice since 2009, backed by official instructions from the concerned ministries.
The court further explained that the term "Armed Forces" used in the Information Bulletin was broad and included the families of both Armed Forces personnel and those in the Para-Military and Police forces who received Gallantry Awards. The policy was intended to reflect the joint directives from the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Home Affairs, which aimed at broadening the scope of the CW category.
Additionally, the court emphasized that judicial intervention in administrative and policy decisions, especially in matters of reservation, is limited unless the policy is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or manifestly illegal. Since the reservation policy followed by the University had been consistent and in compliance with government directives, the court found no reason to interfere with it.
Conclusion:
The court ultimately dismissed the petition, stating that the inclusion of Para-Military and Police Personnel in the CW category was neither arbitrary nor illegal, as it followed clear instructions from the relevant government ministries. The court also noted the petitioner’s delayed challenge, which came at a time when the admission process was already in advanced stages. Judicial reluctance to entertain last-minute challenges was underscored, particularly when policies had been consistently followed over multiple academic years.
Thus, the Delhi High Court’s decision upheld the University’s reservation policy, marking a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue regarding the scope of reservations and the role of government policies in university admissions.
