Today, 28th March, The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea concerning the reservation of seats for children of Armed Forces personnel in educational institutions. The petition seeks clarity on admission policies and benefits provided to such students. The case highlights the need for recognizing the sacrifices of military families. The court’s decision could impact future educational opportunities for children of defense personnel.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court agreed to review a petition challenging an order that upheld the reservation of one percent of seats in medical courses for children of ex-servicemen and Armed Forces personnel.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih stated,
“By way of ad interim order, the position as was existing prior to the dismissal of the writ petitions before the High Court shall continue to operate, until further orders.”
The bench issued a notice and requested responses from the state of Telangana, the Centre, and other parties within four weeks.
The petitioners contested the Telangana High Court’s ruling, arguing that the one percent seat reservation benefits only the children of Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel, while excluding the wards of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) personnel.
The High Court’s decision stemmed from two petitions challenging 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.
One of the petitions submitted to the High Court was from an individual whose father served in the Border Security Force (BSF). This petitioner had participated in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2024.
The plea highlighted that the BSF, Central Industrial Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, and Sashastra Seema Bal are all part of the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF). It argued that the rules limiting the one percent seat reservation to the children of Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel were “discriminatory and bad in law.”
The High Court remarked,
“The interesting conundrum in the instant case is whether the petitioners/children of BSF personnel are sailing in the same boat. In other words, whether the children of CAPF personnel can be treated at par with the children of Army, Navy and Air Force.”
The court acknowledged that the personnel in the Army, Navy, and Air Force operate under different Acts and Rules, with distinct service conditions compared to those of CAPF personnel.
Also Read: Crimes Against Women: Role of Fast-Track Courts in India
While it noted that in some courses in Telangana, the government did extend reservations to the children of CAPF personnel in addition to those from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, it added,
“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.”
In dismissing the petitions, the High Court concluded that the rules are neither unconstitutional nor in violation of the equality clause stated in Article 14 of the Constitution.