Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 16.01.2026
Judgment delivered on: 24.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 4338/2025 & CM APPL. 20065/2025, 40174/2025
MASTER ATHRAVA TRIPATHI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Disha Joshi, Mr. Shashank Jain
and Ms. Asmita Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Yadav, SPC with Mr.
Kapil Dev Yadav and Mr. Atul
Kumar, Advs. for R-1 to R-3.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr. C.
Sanal Nambiar, Ms. Chetna Singh and
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Advs. for
R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
“(a) Call for the complete record leading to the issuance of the
impugned letter dated 21.05.2018 by the Respondent No.1 and after
perusal thereof issue an appropriate Writ including the Writ of
Certiorari to read-down 'Priority-II' clause of the said impugned
letter dated 21.05.2018 in so far as the same discriminates between
"soldiers disabled in action" and "soldiers disabled in action and
boarded out of service" with regard to giving the benefit of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 1 of 41

reservation to their wards in the Priority-II in CW category in various
Under-graduate/ Post-graduate courses;
(b) Direct the Respondents to treat Petitioner No.2 and his ward
(Petitioner No. l) as 'Priority-II' in the 'CW Category' for the purpose
of admission to various courses and program of the various
educational institutions including University of Delhi, as well as for
the purpose of other academic and education concessions;
(c) Direct the Respondents to accord the benefit of 'Priority-II' in the
'CW category' to the Petitioner No.1 for admission to three years full
time undergraduate B. Com. (Hons.) course at Shri Ram College of
Commerce, University of Delhi.”
2. Essentially, the petitioners have laid challenge to the impugned Policy
dated 21.05.2018, issued by the Government of India (MOD), Department
of Ex-Servicemen Welfare/respondent no. 1, and implemented by the
Kendriya Sainik Board/respondent no.2, whereby the category of ‘Priority-
II’ under the children/widows quota [ hereinafter referred as “CW quota”]
has been restricted only to the “wards of soldiers disabled in action and
boarded out from service,” thereby excluding wards of those soldiers who,
though disabled in action, continued in service.
3. The petitioner no. 1 seeks that he should be accorded ‘Priority-II’
status for admission in the CW Category, particularly for admission to the
B.Com (Hons.) course at Shri Ram College of Commerce (SRCC),
University of Delhi, in the academic session 2025-2028.
4. It is stated that petitioner no. 2 was commissioned in the Indian Army
on 08.06.1991 as a regular permanent commission officer. On 09.05.2001,
he became permanently disabled after sustaining 40% composite disability
during “Operation Rakshak/Parakaram” while deployed in Jammu &
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 2 of 41

Kashmir. Accordingly, petitioner no. 2, was declared as a “battle casualty”
vide letter dated 31.05.2004 (Annexure P/10).
5. The Army Policy dated 12.05.1997 (Annexure P/7) provides that all
battle casualties will be retained in service till completion of their terms of
engagement in the rank held/to which promoted. Only if the individual is
unwilling to serve or in exceptional cases due to medical reasons
invalidment proceedings will be initiated. In light of the above policy, the
petitioner no. 2 decided to continue in service, however, after some time he
applied for pre-mature retirement [ hereinafter, also referred to as “PMR”]
due to bad physical condition & deteriorating health, which was granted to
him w.e.f. 15.08.2011 (Annexure P/11). The policy dated 12.05.1997 reads
thus:
AG/Org 2 (MP) (C) Army Headquarters
DHQ PO New Delhi – 110010
B/16122/LMC/Org 2 (MP)(C) 12 May 97
Headquarters
Southern Command
Northern Command
Western Command
Eastern Command
Central Command
Army Trg Command
INVALIDMENT OF CASUALTIES
1. Reference our letter No B/10122/LMC/Org 2 (MP) (C) dated
10Apr 97.
2. Para 4 (j) as under be added to our letter under reference:-
Battle Casualties – All battle casualties will be retained in service
till completion of their terms of engagement in the rank held/to
which promoted. Only if individual is willing to serve or in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 3 of 41

exceptional cases due to medical reasons will invalidment
proceedings to be forwarded to AG Branch for approval as per
procedure laid down in para 4 (a) to (e) above.
(K Sudhakar)
Brig
DDG Org
Personal Section
MS Branch
Org 2 (MP) (a)
PS 2
AG Coord
DGMS (Army)-5(A)
6. Prior thereto, vide letter dated 14.05.1992, the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence had issued a policy recommending ‘Priority-II’
reservation in Medical/Dental colleges for wards of soldiers “disabled in
action” and “boarded out” (Annexure P/2). Policy dated 14.05.1992 is
reproduced herein below in extenso:
Tel: No. 6872362 Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Kendriya Sainik Board
West Block-IV, Wingh-7
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66
No. 192/KSB/17/F-II/92-92 14 May 92
Service HQr’s
Zonal Directors
RSBs/ZSBs
RESERVATION OF SEATS IN MEDICAL/DENTAL COLLEGES FOR
THE WARDS OF DEFENCE PERSONNEL AS A GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA NOMINEE
1. Till last year for the admission to Medical/Dental colleges, the
priorities also included the wards of serving and Retd. Personnel of the
Armed Forces. In view of the limited seats being released by the Ministry
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 4 of 41

of Health & Family Welfare every year and other and other constraints, the
Ministry of Defence has modified the priorities as follow:
Category Priority
a Killed in Action 1
b Disabled in Action and boarded out from service 2
c Died while in service with death attributable to Military
service 3
d Disabled in service and boarded out with disability
attributable to Military service 4
e Gallantry award/Decoration Holders (Service/retired) 5
2. It is requested to give wide publicity of the information to all
concerned.
Sd/--------------
(Sakti Singh)
Brig
Secretary
Kendriya Sainik Board.
7. Followed by above mentioned policy, some ‘Demi Official Letter’ [in
short “DO letters”] came to be issued by Additional Secretary (MoD) on
03.06.1994, 17.11.2000 and 24.08.2003, which sought to omit the word
‘boarded out’ from “Priority-II” and “Priority-IV” (Annexure P/3-P/6).
Subsequent to this a UGC letter dated 07.06.2013, also came to be issued,
reiterating the same position as in DO letters.
8. Subsequently, a policy dated 17.02.2015 was issued, reiterating the
same position as mentioned in the policy dated 14.05.1992. This was
followed by a fresh policy dated 19.05.2017 issued by Government of India
(MOD), Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare/respondent no. 1, in
suppression of all previous policy, which for the first time provided for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 5 of 41

inter-se priority reservation to the wards of armed personnel for other
professional & non – professional courses, other than medical/dental
courses. After this, a policy dated 30.11.2017 was issued, and subsequently
the impugned Policy came to be issued on 21.05.2018 (hereinafter,
‘impugned policy of 2018’), which reads thus:
F.No.6(1)/2017/D(Res.II)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
Room No.237 ' B ' Wing
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi
May 21, 2018
To
The Chief Secretaries/ Administrators
All States/UTs.
Subject: Inter-se priority for reservation/preference to the wards
of Armed Forces personnel by States /UTs for admission
to Medical / Professional / Non-Professional Courses.
Approval of the Competent Authority is conveyed to the removal
of Yudh Sewa Medal series of Awards i.e. Sarvottam Yudh Seva Medal,
Uttam Yudh Seva Medal and Yudh Seva Medal from Category V of the
priority list for reservations/preferences to the wards of Armed Forces
personnel by States/UTs/Central /State Universities/ Autonomous
Institutions for admission in medical/professional/non-professional
courses. The revised list of priorities will be as follows:-
Priority I : Widows/Wards of Defence personnel killed in
action.
Priority II : Wards of disabled in action and boarded out from
service.
Priority III : Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died
while in service with death attributable to military
service.
Priority IV : Wards of disabled in service and boarded out with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 6 of 41

disability attributable to military service.
Priority V : Wards of Ex-Servicemen and serving personnel
who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards:
i. Param Vir Chakra
ii. Ashok Chakra
iii. Maha Vir Chakra
iv. Kirti Chakra
v. Vir Chakra
vi. Shaurya Chakra
vii. Sena, Nau Sena, Vayu Sena Medal
viii. Mention-in-Despatches.
Priority VI : Wards of Ex-Servicemen.
Priority VII : Wives of :
i) defence personnel disabled 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 Awards.
Priority VIII : Wards of Serving Personnel.
Priority IX : Wives of Serving Personnel.
2. This issues with the approval of Hon'ble Raksha Mantri and
supersedes our earlier letters of even number dated 19.05.201 7 and
30.11.2017 on the subject.
(Santosh)
Joint Secretary (Res.II)
Tel.23015772
9. Sequel to above, the office of Dte General, Manpower Policy &
Planning (DG MP & P)/ respondent no.3 vide certificate dated 21.11.2022,
issued a priority certificate in respect of petitioner no.1, the minor son of
petitioner no. 2, thereby certifying that petitioner no.1 is eligible for
educational concession for admission against the Armed Forces Quota under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 7 of 41

“Priority-IV”. Accordingly, the office of respondent no.3, issued an
“Entitlement Card” (Card no. 90/2024) in favour of petitioner no.1.
10. However, on 07.11.2024, petitioner no.2 wrote to respondent no.3
requesting that since he retired on 15.08.2011, his ward (petitioner no. 1) be
considered as per the then existing policy Letters of 2011 and not the Policy
of 2018. However, he was informed by the Army HQ that petitioner no.1
falls in “Priority-IV” and not in “Priority-II”.
11. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submits that the impugned Policy of 2018, issued by the
Government of India (MOD), Department of Ex-Servicemen
Welfare/respondent no. 1, which is implemented by the Kendriya Sainik
Board/respondent no.2, in so far as it confines the benefit of ‘Priority-II’
categorization only to wards of Armed Forces personnel who were disabled
in action and boarded out of service, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it discriminates against those
personnels who, though disabled in action were retained in service despite
their disability.
12. He submits that until the impugned Policy of 2018 was notified, the
University of Delhi/respondent no.4 and other institutions, since time
immemorial had been admitting wards of officers and soldiers disabled-in-
action as ‘Priority-II’ candidates in various educational courses, including
both medical & non-medical courses based on policy letter dated 14.05.1992
& by subsequent DOs and UGC letter.
13. He submits that this consistent past practice followed by the
respondent no. 4 for decades has given rise to a legitimate expectation in the
minds of the petitioners that the benefit of ‘Priority-II’ would continue to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 8 of 41

extended to wards of such personnel. He submits that a deviation from this
past practice, constitutes a clear violation of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, rendering the impugned policy arbitrary, unfair, and liable to be
set aside.
14. He further submits that the issuance of the ‘Priority-IV’ certificate
dated 21.11.2022 instead of ‘Priority-II’ is wrongful, as the impugned
Policy of 2018 lacks a clause for retrospective application and cannot apply
to officers/soldiers disabled-in-action and retired prior to 21.05.2018.
Invoking the principle of law that vested benefits under previously existing
policy cannot be withdrawn by other policy unless such policy Letter has
been expressly made retrospective, he submits that petitioner no. 2, having
become a battle casualty in 2004 during ‘Operation Rakshak/Parakram’ and
retired on 15.08.2011, is governed by the policy existing at that time, and the
later impugned Policy of 2018 cannot retrospectively take away such vested
rights. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the decisions in
Railway Board v. C.R Rangadhamaiah , (1997) 6 SCC 623; Punjab State
Coop. Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. v. Coop. Societies , (2022) 4
SCC 363; University of Delhi & Anr v. Zoya Gill & Ors., 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 10312.
15. He further submits that the distinction drawn between two classes of
war disabled soldiers, those “boarded out” and those “retained in service”,
has no nexus with the objective of granting such priority, which is to honour
the soldier’s sacrifice. The impugned Policy, therefore, creates an artificial
discrimination among equals and is arbitrary.
16. Additionally, he submits that, the impugned policy suffers from the
vice of under-inclusion in “Priority-II” and over-inclusion in “Priority-VI”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 9 of 41

in so far as servicemen who were disabled in action but continued to serve in
the Armed Forces are concerned and is, therefore, violative of Article 14. To
buttress his submissions, reliance has placed on the decision of Ramesh
Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P., (2024) 5 SCC 217.
17. Moreover, he submits that the impugned Policy of 2018 needs to be
read in conjunction with the policy dated 12.05.1997 and if both are read
together then the ‘Priority-II’ would ipso-facto include the ‘Battle Casualty’
cases who were retained in service and subsequently retired in accordance
with the policy dated 12.05.1997.
18. Furthermore, he submits that a battle casualty soldier who continues
serving derives no extra benefit or advantage, whereas a soldier boarded out
receives War-Injury Pension equivalent to the last pay drawn, terminal
benefits, and the additional advantage of priority employment. He further
submits that under Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules to Casualty Pensionary
Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 1982 [hereinafter, ‘the Rules’],
“invalidment” is a pre-condition for disability pension, and any person
leaving in a lower medical category is deemed to have been invalided;
therefore, in this backdrop, as petitioner no. 2 is receiving war injury
pension which is a form of disability pension, he would also be considered
invalided out. To buttress his contention, he places reliance on the decision
in Union of India v. Angad Singh Titaria, (2015) 12 SCC 257, particularly
para 10 thereof, which reads as under:
“10. Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules makes it clear that invalidating
from service is a necessary condition for grant of disability pension.
An individual who, at the time of his release under the Release
Regulations, is in a lower medical category than that in which he
was recruited will be treated as “invalidated from service ”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 10 of 41

19. Per contra , Mr. Abhishek Yadav, learned SPC, appearing for the
respondent no. 1 to 3, submits that vide policy dated 14.05.1992 the
Government of India, (MOD), Kendriya Sainik Board/respondent no.2,
formulated the inter-se priorities, thereby recommending ‘Priority-II’
reservation only in Medical/Dental colleges for wards of soldiers “disabled
in action” and “boarded out” (Annexure P/2).
20. Subsequently, vide a fresh Policy dated 19.05.2017 issued by
Government of India (MOD), Department of Ex-Servicemen
Welfare/respondent no. 1, in suppression of all previous policies, introduced
for the first time inter se priority reservation to the wards of Armed Forces
personnel for professional & non – professional courses, other than medical
courses.
21. He submits that when petitioner no. 2 retired on 15.08.2011, there was
no policy in place giving reservation benefit by way of inter-se priorities for
other professional & non-professional courses, therefore, petitioners’
submission that the impugned Policy of 2018 has been given retrospective
application divesting the petitioner of a vested right, is misconceived.
22. He further submits that respondent no. 2, in pursuance of its role of
being an attached office of the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare,
Ministry of Defence (MoD), and entrusted with the responsibility of
providing detailed executive directions required for the implementation of
policies laid down by the Ministry/Department, issued the Standard
Operating Procedure [ hereinafter referred to as “SOP”] dated 01.07.2020,
with the specific aim to amplify and explain in detail each priority
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 11 of 41

mentioned in the policy dated 19.05.2017, and in its subsequent amendments
dated 30.11.2017 and 21.05.2018.
23. He further submits that the SOP was formulated after due
consideration of the various Army Orders, Army Instructions, and policy
Letters issued by the Government of India (MoD) from time to time, which
lay down the conditions for serving, retiring, and authorizing pensions in the
Armed Forces.
24. Besides this, the aforesaid SOP was specifically devised to address
the practical difficulties previously encountered by the office bearers of the
Rajya Sainik Boards (RSB), Zila Sainik Boards (ZSB), and Record Offices
while issuing Priority/Educational Concession Certificates.
25. He submits that the impugned Policy of 2018 is well-thought-out,
reasoned, and has followed the same logic over many years, as the benefit
under “Priority-II”is strictly offered to Armed Forces personnel who have
suffered disability that occurred in action, because of which they cannot be
retained in service and have to be boarded out of service after going through
Invalid Medical Board [in short “IMB].
26. He further submits that “Priority-IV” is, however, distinct. It includes
those armed forces personnel who are disabled-in-service, and are invalided
out of service after going through IMB or are retained in service after being
downgraded as LMC, but are subsequently invalided out of service under
the Army Rules. Therefore, the impugned Policy of 2018, as implemented
by the respondent no. 2 under the aegis of the MoD is not arbitrary or
violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.
27. In support of his contentions, Mr. Yadav has placed reliance on Ms.
Sakshi & Hav Sunil Kumar (Retd.) v. UOI & Ors. [W.P.(C) 8847/2023] ,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 12 of 41

Shri Nikhil Choudhary v. UOI [CWP No. 13615/2023 ], Viney Chaudhary
v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) 3285/2023] .
28. Moreover, he submits that, Rule 4 of the Rules, relied upon by the
petitioner is applicable solely for the purpose of granting disability pension
and its applicability cannot be extended to Policy of 2018 which provides
for inter-se priority reservation.
29. Lastly, he submits that while the office of the respondent no.3 had
initially issued a ‘Priority-IV’ inter-se priority certificate to the ward of
petitioner no. 2 (i.e. petitioner no. 1), but the said certificate was issued
erroneously due to an inadvertent administrative oversight. Therefore, in
strict accordance with the ibid p olicy & SOP, the petitioner no.1 is entitled
only to a ‘Priority-VI’ inter-se priority certificate, falling under the category
of ‘Wards of Ex-Servicemen’.
30. Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
no.4/University of Delhi, submits that respondent no. 4 has been impleaded
only as a proforma party in the present petition and no specific cause of
action or grievance against the answering respondent no. 4 has been
disclosed.
31. He submits that respondent no. 4 strictly adheres to and implements
the reservation policies issued by the Government of India regarding the
Children/Wards of Armed Forces Personnel (CW) category, subject to
approval by the University's Statutory Bodies. The answering respondent no.
4 has no role in the framing of the policy decisions challenged in the present
petition.
32. In rejoinder, Mr. Narayan, submits that the respondent no. 1 & 2 in
their Counter Affidavit have accepted that the KSB/respondent no.2 is only
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 13 of 41

an implementing body of Government Policies. Hence, its duty is restricted
to the implementation of existing policies without any distortion.
33. He further submits that the respondents’ reliance on the judgment of
the Coordinate Bench in Ms. Sakshi (Supra) is misplaced, as the said
judgment is materially distinguishable from the present case as the
impugned Policy of 2018 remained unchallenged in that decision, whereas
in the present case the petitioners herein have explicitly challenged the vires
and validity of the Policy dated 21.05.2018.
34. Moreover, he submits that, the primary ground herein is the
impermissible retrospective application of the Policy of 2018 and SOP dated
01.07.2020 to a battle casualty that occurred prior to their enactment, and a
specific issue of non-retrospectivity was never raised or decided in the
decision of Ms. Sakshi (Supra).
35. Additionally, he submits that after the completion of pleadings and the
commencement of final arguments, the respondents have belatedly issued a
letter dated 04.08.2025, asserting that the ‘Priority-IV Certificate’ was issued
to petitioner no. 1 due to inadvertent oversight. He submits that this
contention by the respondent is a blatant afterthought and a calculated
attempt to mislead this Court.
36. Further, to buttress his contention, Mr. Narayan highlights the
instance of Ms. Aditi Singh , D/o Brig. Narinder Singh, who was disabled in
action on 13.03.2011 during ‘Operation Rakshak’. He submits that, Ms.
Aditi Singh was granted the benefit of ‘Priority-II’ for admission into the
LLB Course of respondent no. 4 (University of Delhi) in the year 2015.
37. I have heard Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Abhishek Yadav, learned Sr. Panel
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 14 of 41

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3, and have perused the
material available on record.
38. The grievance articulated in the present petition is that the petitioner
no. 1, the minor son of petitioner no. 2, was issued Priority Certificates dated
21.11.2022 and 02.07.2025 by the respondent no. 3 and the District Sainik
Welfare Office, respectively, on the basis of the impugned Policy Letter of
2018, for educational concession for admission against the CW quota for
armed forces personnel under “Priority-IV” which is applicable to ‘ wards of
disabled-in-service and boarded-out with disability attributable to military
service’ and not under “Priority-II” which applies to ‘wards of disabled-in-
action and boarded out from service’ thereby excluding wards of those
soldiers who, though disabled in action, continued in service.
39. Before examining the factual matrix and merits of the case, it is to be
noted that during pendency of the present writ petition, respondent no. 1,
while responding to the CM application no. 40174/2025 filed by the
petitioners to seek interim protection, vide its reply dated 23.07.2025 took a
stand that “Priority-IV” certificate was issued erroneously to petitioner no.1
due to an oversight, whereas he was only entitled to “Priority-VI” as per the
impugned Policy dated 21.05.2018.
40. Subsequently, vide letter dated 04.08.2025, the District Sainik
Welfare Office, Bhopal cancelled the “Priority-IV” certificate issued vide
letter dated 02.07.2025 to petitioner no. 1. It was further observed that
petitioner no.1 is entitled to “Priority-VI” instead of “Priority-IV”. The
relevant extract of the letter dated 04.08.2025, which was placed on record
by the petitioners along with CM APPL. 60994/2025 reads thus:
“DISTRICT SAINIK WELFARE OFFICE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 15 of 41

SAINIK REST HOUSE, BANGANGA CHAURAHA
BHOPAL
Tele & Fax : 0755 – 2556198
E Mail : [email protected]
No : DSWO/Bpl/180/5/Wel II/25/833 Dated : 04 Aug 2025
To
Lt Col Sanjay Tripathi (Retd)
K-4/5, Windsor Hill, Chuna Bhatti
Kolar Road, Bhopal (MP) – 462016
Sub : ISSUE OF EDUCATIONAL CONCESSION CERTIFICATE
1. Please refer to your visit to this office on 02 Jul 2025 with
respect to issue of Educational Concession Certificate (ECC) to your
ward.
2. It is intimated to you that Educational Concession Certificate
(ECC) to your Ward Mr Atharva Tripathi was issued with Priority IV
erroneously due to oversight on 02 Jul 2025.
3. As per facts revealed now, you were injured during Op
Rakshak in May 2001 and injury was classified as Battle Casualty.
You continued to serve and opted for voluntarily retirement in 16 Aug
2011 (AN) after completing 20 years service. Upon retirement, you
underwent a Release Medical Board (RMB) instead of Invalided
Medical Board (IMB). As per existing policy, your ward is entitled to
priority VI (Ward of ESM) ECC instead of Priority IV.
4. Apropos, ECC certificate with Priority IV issued to your ward
for Mr Atharva Tripathi vide this office letter No
DSWO/BPL/180/2/WEL/2025/9 dated 02 Jul 2025 may be “treated as
cancelled”.
5. It is therefore, requested to return the above ECC issued to you
for your ward in original to this office at the earliest. You are advised
to obtain ECC in Priority VI only as per policy on ibid subject.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 16 of 41

-s/d-
Col Rajeev Khatri (Retd)
Distt Sainik Welfare Officer
Copy to:-
Jt Dir (Adm & Coord)
Kendriya Sainik Board
West Block IV, Wing VII
RK Puram, New Delhi-110066
- For information please
Director, Col MP-5
Addl Dte Gen of Manpower (MP-5 (B)
ORO, West Block-III
RK Puram, New Delhi – 11
The Registrar
Delhi University, North Campus
New Delhi – 110011”
[emphasis supplied]
41. Vide order dated 10.07.2025 passed in the CM APPL. 40174/2025,
this Court had observed that the categorization of petitioner no.1, whether it
is “Priority-II” or “Priority-IV”, will be subject to the outcome of the writ
petition.
42. It is borne out from the record that petitioner no.1 had applied for seat
allocation in University of Delhi for B.Com Programme course under
“Priority-IV”, as till the time of making an application, the cancellation of
“Priority-IV” certificate issued to petitioner no.1 had not been
communicated to the petitioners. Accordingly, petitioner no.1 was allotted a
seat in Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College for B.Com Programme and fee
was also deposited by the petitioners, which was acknowledged by the
University. However during counselling, petitioner no. 1 was informed that
his “Priority-IV” certificate has not been verified by the respondent no.2,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 17 of 41

which had led to the filing of CM APPL. 60994/2025 by the petitioners inter
alia seeking direction that respondent no. 2 be directed to verify the
candidature of the petitioner for admission in B.Com Programme course
under “Priority-IV”.
43. At the time of issuance of notice in the said application [CM APPL.
60994/2025], Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.4/University of Delhi was asked to seek instructions
as to whether the seat that was allotted to the petitioner in the counselling is
still available to the petitioner in aforesaid college. Accordingly, on
25.09.2025, Mr. Kumar, on instructions, submitted that petitioner no.1’s
admission in Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College has not been cancelled.
44. Since it had not come on record as to whether the admission of the
petitioner no.1 in the aforesaid college has been verified by respondent no.2
on the basis of which “Priority”, the matter was listed for seeking
clarification on 16.01.2026.
45. On 16.01.2026, Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned senior counsel, on
instructions, submitted that the petitioner no.1 was though granted admission
in B.Com programme in Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College, but the
petitioner had later withdrawn his admission.
46. Therefore, the controversy as regards priority categorization, whether
the petitioner no.1 is entitled for reservation under ‘Priority-II’; ‘Priority-
IV’ or ‘Priority-VI’ still looms large and needs to be addressed in the present
judgment.
47. The facts which are not in dispute are that petitioner no.2 was a
Permanent Commissioned Officer having joined Indian Army on
08.06.1991. On 09.05.2001, he became permanently disabled after
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 18 of 41

sustaining 40% composite disability during “Operation Rakshak/Parakram”
while deployed in Jammu and Kashmir. Accordingly, he was declared
“Battle Casualty” vide letter dated 31.05.2004. However, he was retained in
service till completion of his term of engagement, based on the nature of
injury, therefore, Invalided Medical Board (IMB) proceedings were not
initiated by the competent medical authority against petitioner no.2, though
after lapse of considerable time, petitioner no.2 applied for premature
retirement (PMR) which was granted to him w.e.f 15.08.2011.
48. When petitioner no.2 got premature retirement on 15.08.2011, there
existed no policy extending the benefit of reservation in the form of inter-se
priorities to other professional and non-professional courses, except for
medical/dental courses, therefore, petitioners’ submission that they should
be governed by the Policy Letter which was in force at the time petitioner
no. 2 retired i.e. on 15.08.2011 is misplaced. Rather, the petitioners have
themselves admitted that there did not exist any Policy extending the benefit
of reservation in the form of inter-se priorities with respect to admission to
Non-Medical/Non-Dental Undergraduate/Post-Graduate and MBA Courses
at that relevant time, and such a Policy came to be issued for the first time
only on 19.05.2017.
49. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, it
is essential to understand the background and objective behind inter-se
priorities for grant of reservation under the CW quota of armed forces
personnel. The reservation of seats in Medical and Dental Colleges of
wards/widows of Armed Forces Personnel was introduced in 1992.
Subsequently, provision was made for reservation for wards/widows of
Armed Forces personnel in other Professional/Non Professional courses by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 19 of 41

the Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare (DESW) with the issuance of
letter No 6(1)/2017/D(Res-I1) dated 19.05.2017 and its two subsequent
amendments on 30.11.2017 and then in the form of impugned Policy of
2018, which also laid down inter-se priority for such reservation.
50. In July 2020 DESW notified the Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP), the aim of which was to amplify each priority mentioned in policy
letter dated 19.05.2017 and its subsequent amendments on 30.11.2017 and
21.05.2018 (impugned Policy) in detail, in light of various Army orders,
Army instructions and letters issued by GOI MoD from time to time.
51. The SOP has been placed on record by the respondent no. 1 & 2
through their counter-affidavit. The relevant extracts from the SOP which
gives the historical background of the reservation provided to the wards of
Armed Forces Personnel and inter-se priority and the aim with which such
SOP was brought, are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“Tele:26188098 Kendriya Sainik Board
Fax:26192362 Ministry of Defence
Kendriya Sainik Board
West Block-IV Wing-VII
R K Puram
New Delhi-110066
370/Adm/MBBS/BDS/C 01 Jul 2020
Director DSW, Secretary RSB of
All States/UTs
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR INTER-SE
PRORITY FOR RESERVATION/PREFERENCE TO THE
WARDS OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL BY STATE/UTs
FOR ADMISSION TO MEDICAL / PROFESSIONAL / NON-
PROFESSIONAL COURSES
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 20 of 41

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 personal
and ESM to fill up the reserved seats strictly in accordance with
priorities lay 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
reservation for wards of defence personnel and also not filling
seats as per priorities. It is also observed that the office bearer of
ZSB/RSBs/Record offices were also facing difficulties while using
Priority/Educational concession certificate to the wards of
defence personnel.
2. Keeping in mind the difficulties as face by the
RO/ZSB/RSBs, an SOP on the subject has been friend by KSB for
easy transparency in documentation for issuing
Priority/Educational concession certificate to the ward of defence
personnel at Central/State Universities/Institutions/Colleges and
same is forwarded herewith for strictly implementation at your
end.
3. Please ack.
-s/d-
(N Thaphlal)
Lt Col
Jt Dir (Adm & Coord)
For Secretary KSB
SOP
INTER-SE PRORITY FOR RESERVATION/PREFERENCE
TO THE WARDS OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL BY
STATE/UTs FOR ADMISSION TO MEDICAL /
PROFESSIONAL / NON-PROFESSIONAL COURSES
Introduction
1. The Kendriya Sainik Board (DSB) Sectt is the apex body of
Government of India responsible for implementing Government
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 21 of 41

policies for welfare of Ex-Servicemen (ESM), disabled ESM and
dependents / Wards of ESM. With the effort of KSB Sectt the
reservation of seats in Medical and Dental Colleges of
wards/widows of Armed Forces Personnel was introduced in
1967. In 1991 Mr Abraham Prathipati, Additional Secretary,
Department of Defence, MoD requested States/UTs to consider
Wards of Widows of ESM for seats in professional colleges
including MBBS/BDS seats and same was reiterate by Hon’ble
RM vide his DO letter No 12(73)US(WE)2000/D(Res)/7883-F/RM
dated 17 Nov 2000 and No 12 (73)/US(WE)00/2688-F/RM dated
29 Aug 2003 addressed to Ministry of Human Resources
Development, GOI and also stipulated the priorities for reserved
seats for wards of Defence personnel in Medical/other
Professional colleges in States/UTs. Due to these requests States,
Central universities and other institutions across the country has
started offering reservation towards wards / widows of Armed
Forces personnel in Professional/Non professional courses. To
distribute the allotted quota among eligible candidates in
possible way there was a need to lay down prioritise / categorise
to distribute reservation quota among beneficiaries, so that the
quota is distributed in the best possible way.
Requirement of Inter-se Priority for Reservation/Preferences in
Educational Institute
2. To distribute the allotted quota given by States/UTs in
educational institutions among eligible candidates (to
wards/widows of Armed Forces Personnel) in the best possible
way, Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare, in the year 2017 has
issued a letter No 6(1)/2017/D(Res-I1) dated 19 May 2017 and its
subsequent amendments in Nov 2017 and 21 May 2018 (Appx 'A')
laying down inter-se priority for reservation /preferences to the
wards/widows of Armed Forces Personnel by States/UTs for
admission to Medical/Professional/Non Professional courses.
Requirement of Educational Concession Certificate
3. Universities and educational institution which are giving
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 22 of 41

reservation/preferences towards/ widows of Armed Forces
Personnel for admission to Medical/professional/Non-professional
courses are not well versed with service conditions and
documentation procedures. To allot vacancies as per DESW letter
No 6(1)/2017/D/(Res-II) dated 19 May 2017 and its subsequent
amendments in Nov 2017 and 21 May 2018 (Appx 'A') universities
have started asking students candidates to furnish educational
concessional certificate mentioning inter-se priority for
reservation/preference to be vetted and signed by Zila Sainik
Board/Rajya Sainik Board/Kendriya Sainik Board.
Requirement of SOP for Issuing Educational Concession
4. All ZSBs/RSBs/KSB officials have a fair knowledge of
service documentation but to allot certain priority in educational
concession certificate, there is a need to study different Army
orders, Army instructions and letters issued by GOI MoD from
time to time laying down conditions of serving/retiring/authorising
pension in Armed Forces. In view of the above to implement
DESW letter No 6(1)/2017/D(Res-II) dated 19 May 2017 and its
subsequent amendments in Nov 2017 and 21 May 2018 (Appx 'A')
and for giving reservation /preference to the wards of armed
forces personnel for admission to medical/professional/non-
professional courses, there is a need to prepare SOP amplifying
each priority in detail along with, documents required to assess
correct priorities In light of various Army orders, Army
instructions and letters issued by GOI MoD from time to time
laying down conditions of serving/retiring/authorising pension in
Armed Forces.
Aim
5. The aim of the SOP is to amplify each priority mentioned
in DESW letter No 6(1)/2017/D(Res-I) dated 19 May 2017 and
its subsequent amendments in Nov 2017 and 21 May 2018 (Appx
'A') in detail, in light of various Army orders, Army instructions
and letters issued by GOI MoD from time to time laying down
conditions of serving/retiring/authorising pension in Armed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 23 of 41

Forces .”
52. In the SOP, each priority has been explained at length, delineating the
eligibility & non-eligibility criteria for the same. The relevant extract from
SOP pertaining to Priority-II; Priority-IV and Priority-VI, reads thus:
“7. Priority-II Wards of disabled in action and boarded out
from service
Eligible
All the Armed Forces Personnel who are injured/disabled in
action under the circumstances mentioned in AO/1/2003/MP and
declared Battle casualty, and are invalided out of service on
account of disability under AR 13,3, III(iii) after having
undergone IMB and are entitled to War Injury Pension consisting
of service element and war injury element or liberalized disability
pension consisting of service element and disability element as per
st
Para 6.1 of MoD(GOI) letter 1(2)/97/1/D(Pen-C) dated 31 Jan
2001 (Appx 'C') and its subsequent amendment letter then their
wards are eligible for claiming Priority-II.
xxx xxx xxx
Not-Eligible
All Armed Forces Personnel who are injured in action or
circumstances mentioned in AO/1/2003/MP and declared Battle
casualty, despite having disability being retained in service and
retired subsequently under Army Rule 13 3 III (i), 13 3 II(ii) or
took premature retirement under own request under Army Rule 13
3 III (iv) and are in receipt of war injury element or liberalized
disability element their wards are not entitled for P-II as per Para
11 (Appx 'C') but will only be considered as ESM hence can apply
under P-VI.
xxx xxx xxx
9. PRIORITY-IV Wards of Disabled in Service and Boarded
out with Disability Attributable to Military Service
Eligible
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 24 of 41

(i) All Armed Forces Personnel who were found medically
unfit for further service due to disability occurred in service
conditions (as mentioned in category 'B' and 'C' of para 4.1 of
Ministry of Defence, Govt of India letter No 1 (2) 97/I/D (Pen-C)
dated 31 Jan 2001 (Appx 'C') and subsequent amendments) and
are invalid out from service as per Army Rule 13 3 III (iii) after
having Invalid Medical Board and are in receipt of Disability
Pension consisting of Service Element and Disability Element as
per Para 7 (Appx 'C') are eligible for Priority-IV.
(ii) All Armed Forces Personnel who were found medically
unfit for certain duties due to disability occurred in service
conditions (as mentioned in category 'B' and 'C' of para 4.1 of
Ministry of Defence, Govt of India letter No 1 (2) 97/I/D (Pen-C)
dated 31 Jan 2001 (Appx 'C') and subsequent amendments) and
are retained in service after being downgraded as (LMC) due to
disability by the competent medical authorities and subsequently
invalided out of service under Army Rule:
(aa) 13 3 III (iii) (a) (i)- no sheltered appointment is
available in the unit (LMC cases only).
(ab) 13 3 III (v) - only on LMC ground which is
attributable to aggravated by military service.
(ac) Are in receipt of Disability Pension consisting of
Service Element and Disability Element are eligible for
Priority-IV.
(iii) All Armed Forces Recruits who were invalid out from
service as per Army Rule 13 3 IV after having Invalid Medical
Board and are granted Medical/Disability Pension and ESM
status as per DESW, Ministry of Defence letter 12/I/2005/D(Res)
dated 01 Feb 2006 (Appx 'D') are eligible for Priority-IV.
xxx xxx xxx
Not-Eligible
As per letter DESW, MoD letter No. 6(1)/2017/D (Res.II)
dated 21 May 2018 (Appx 'A') who should be not entitled to avail
the benefits under Priority-IV (i.e. Wards of disabled in service
and boarded out from the service with disability Attributable to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 25 of 41

Military Service) are mentioned below:-
(i) All Armed Forces Personnel who were
retired/discharged from service on fulfilling the conditions
of his enrolment or having reached the stage at which
discharge may be enforced as per Army Rule 13 3 III (ii)
and entitled to disability element as per Para 8 (Appx 'C')
are not eligible for Priority-IV.
(ii) All Armed Forces Personnel who were
retired/discharged from service on completion of period of
army, service only, there being no vacancy in the Reserve as
per Army Rule 13 3 III (ii) are not eligible for Priority-IV.
(iii) All Armed Forces Personnel who were
retired/discharged from service at his own request before
fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment as per Army Rule
13 3 III (iv) are not eligible for Priority-IV.
(iv) All Armed Forces Personnel who were
retired/discharged from service in any circumstances
having not attributable and not aggravated (NANA) shall
not be eligible for Priority-IV.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Priority-VI Wards of Ex-Servicemen
As per Ministry of Defence, Govt of India File No
36034/I/06-Estt (SCT) dated 04 Oct 2012 (Appx 'E') an ex-
serviceman means a person –
(a) Who has served in any rank whether as a combatant or non
combatant in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian
Union, and
(b) Who either has been retired or relieved or discharged from
such service whether at his own request or being relieved by the
employer after earning his or her pension; or
(c) Who has been relieved from such service on medical
grounds attributable to military service or circumstances beyond
his control and awarded medical or other disability pension; or”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 26 of 41

53. The eligibility criteria for “Priority-II” provides that the wards of
armed forces personnel who are injured/disabled-in-action, declared battle
casualty and are invalided out of service on account of disability after
having undergone Invalid Medical Board (IMB) are entitled to war injury
pension consisting of service element and war injury element or entitled to
liberalized disability pension consisting of service element and disability
element, are eligible for “Priority-II”.
53.1 The condition of non-eligibility as provided in “Priority-II” makes it
evident that all armed forces personnel who are though injured in action and
declared battle casualty, but despite having disability have been retained in
service and retired subsequently or took premature retirement under own
request and are in receipt of war injury element or liberalized disability
element, their wards are not entitled for “Priority-II” but will only be
considered as ex-servicemen (ESM), hence can apply under “Priority-VI”.
54. As per eligibility condition (i) under ‘Priority-IV”, all armed forces
personnel who are medically unfit for further service due to disability
occurring in service and have been invalided out from service after
undergoing IMB and are receiving disability pension, are eligible for
“Priority-IV”.
54.1 Condition (ii) of eligibility under “Priority-IV” provides that all
armed forces personnel who are found unfit for certain duties due to
disability occurring in service and are retained in service after being
downgraded as Lower Medical Category (LMC) due to disability assessed
by the competent medical authorities and are subsequently invalided out of
service under Army Rules, are also eligible for “Priority-IV”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 27 of 41

54.2 Likewise, all armed forces recruits who are invalided out of service as
per Army Rules after undergoing IMB and are granted medical/disability
pension and ex-servicemen (ESM) status are also eligible for “Priority-IV”.
in terms of condition (iii) of eligibility.
54.3 Pertinently, condition (iii) of non-eligibility under “Priority-IV”
provides that those armed forces personnel who were retired/discharged
from service at their own request are not eligible for “Priority-IV”. In other
words, personnel who is quitting the service out of his own freewill and has
not been invalided out of service under the IMB is not eligible for “Priority-
IV”.
55. A reading of “Priority-VI” category (wards of ESM) shows that it
inter alia covers the wards of those armed forces personnel who has been
retired or relieved or discharged from service whether at his own request or
relieved by the employer after earning his or her pension.
56. Juxtaposed reading of the eligibility and non-eligibility conditions of
“Priority-II”, “Priority-IV” and “Priority-VI” makes it plain that wards of
armed forces personnel who are injured/disabled-in-action and are boarded
out after having undergone invaliding proceeding by IMB are eligible for
claiming “Priority-II”; whereas those armed forces personnel who are
disabled-in-service, and are invalided out of service after going through
IMB or are retained in service after being downgraded as LMC, but are
subsequently invalided out of service under the Army Rules after
undergoing IMB, are eligible for “Priority-IV”. However, those, who were
retained in service despite disability and had an opportunity to render full
service and actually rendered full service or voluntarily took retirement
prematurely, are to be considered eligible only under “Priority-VI”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 28 of 41

57. Even condition (iii) of non-eligibility under “Priority-II” also makes it
clear that the armed forces personnel who are injured in action but took
premature retirement on their own request will be considered as ex-
servicemen (ESM) and can apply under “Priority-VI”.
58. Therefore, in light of the Policy of 2018 read with SOP, the case of
the petitioner no.1 falls under “Priority-VI” as his father, the petitioner no. 2,
was allowed to complete his full service notwithstanding him being declared
as battle casualty.
59. This Court is of the considered view that there cannot be any
comparison between “Priority-II”; “Priority-IV” and “Priority-VI”. Each of
these Priorities under the Policy of 2018, as amplified in the SOP, are based
on various factors. Merely because the armed forces personnel has been
disabled-in-action or has been declared as battle casualty, will not make
his/her wards eligible to claim “Priority-II” or “Priority-IV”. The other
relevant factors like whether, he was invalidated out or he was retained in
service and given an option to render full service or has taken a pre mature
retirement, plays crucial role in deciding the priority under which benefit of
reservation can be provided.
60. The Policy of 2018 which carves out different Priorities/Categories
based on various relevant factors is well thought out and reasoned, and
cannot be termed as arbitrary in any manner. This Court finds that there
exists a reasonable basis for such classification, which has a distinct
rationale and a clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Main
object for incorporating these priorities is to recognize the fact that the
concerned Armed Forces Personnel, who incurred ‘disability in action’ or
‘disability in service’ and could not complete the normal service tenure,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 29 of 41

their wards should be compensated by giving higher priorities viz. “Priority-
II” or “Priority-IV”, respectively, so that they should not feel left out on
being ‘boarded out’. Further, the Armed Forces Personnel who is ‘boarded
out’ also suffers financial hardships on account of discontinuation of salary
and service benefits, as compared to those who are retained in service and
will continue to receive full salary, all promotions and other associated
benefits. Therefore, the differentiation in entitlements under different
priorities is based on rational and documented grounds, considering the
nature of service, long-term welfare implications and other distinctions.
61. Resultantly, the submission of Mr. Narayan that a battle casualty
soldier who continues to serve derives no extra benefit or advantage,
whereas a soldier boarded out receives War-Injury Pension equivalent to the
last pay drawn, terminal benefits, and the additional advantage of priority
employment, is misconceived, and is accordingly rejected.
62. Further, referring to Rule 4 of the Rules and the decision in Angad
Singh Titaria (supra), Mr. Narayan had argued that “invalidment” is a pre-
condition for disability pension, and any person leaving in a lower medical
category is deemed to have been invalided; therefore, in this backdrop, as
petitioner no.2 is receiving war injury pension which is a form of disability
pension, he would also be considered invalided out. The argument is
fallacious. Rule 4 of the Entitlement Rules to Casualty Pensionary Awards
to the Armed Forces Personnel, 1982 is applicable solely for the purpose of
granting disability pension and cannot be made applicable for categorization
under inter-se priority for reservation under the impugned Policy of 2018.
The “deemed status” of being invalided out provided under the said Rule as
construed in Angad Singh Titaria (supra) is a legal fiction created for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 30 of 41

limited purpose of pensionary benefits and does not alter the factual status of
the petitioner no.2 having quit the service on his own after taking Premature
Retirement and not being invalided out through a Invalided Medical Board
(IMB).
63. Likewise, this Court does not find merit in the submission of Mr.
Narayan that the impugned Policy of 2018 is arbitrary or suffers from the
vice of Under-inclusion in “Priority-II” and Over-inclusion in “Priority-IV”
or “Priority VI”. The wards of soldiers who were disabled-in-action /
disabled-in-service and invalided out of service before rendering their full
service, in the considered opinion of this Court, have rightly been
categorized in higher priorities viz. “Priority-II” and “Priority-IV” as against
the wards those personnel who were ‘retained in service’ with the option to
complete their term and subsequently took Premature Retirement.
64. Though Article 14 provides for equality before law, it undoubtedly
allows for reasonable classification, based upon intelligible differentia,
having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The law is
well settled that the principle of equality does not imply that the same law
must apply to everyone; rather, it mandates that the law should deal alike
with all in one class, ensuring equality of treatment under equal
circumstances. In other words, equals should not be treated unlike and
unlike should not be treated alike; rather, likes should be treated alike.
Reference in this regard may be had to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
court in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59 , wherein it has
been observed as under –
“100. Article 14, which enshrines the principle of equality as a
fundamental right mandates that the State shall not deny to any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 31 of 41

person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws
within the territory of India. It, thus, gives the right to equal
treatment in similar circumstances, both in privileges conferred and
in the liabilities imposed. In Srinivasa Theatre v. State of
T.N. [Srinivasa Theatre v. State of T.N., (1992) 2 SCC 643] , this
Court explained that the two expressions “equality before law” and
“equal protection of law” do not mean the same thing even if there
may be much in common between them. “Equality before law” is a
dynamic concept having many facets. One facet is that there shall be
no privileged person or class and that none shall be above law.
Another facet is “the obligation upon the State to bring about,
through the machinery of law, a more equal society … for, equality
before law can be predicated meaningfully only in an equal society
…”. The Court further observed that Article 14 prescribes equality
before law. But the fact remains that all persons are not equal by
nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore, a mechanical
equality before the law may result in injustice. Thus, the guarantee
against the denial of equal protection of the law does not mean that
identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all
persons in spite of difference in circumstances or conditions
(see Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India [Charanjit Lal
Chowdhury v. Union of India, 1950 SCC 833 : AIR 1951 SC 41 :
1950 SCR 869] ).
101. The varying needs of different classes or sections of people
require differential and separate treatment. The legislature is
required to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite
variety of human relations. It must, therefore, necessarily have the
power of making laws to attain particular objects and, for that
purpose, of distinguishing, selecting and classifying persons and
things upon which its laws are to operate. The principle of equality
of law, thus, means not that the same law should apply to everyone
but that a law should deal alike with all in one class; that there
should be an equality of treatment under equal circumstances. It
means that equals should not be treated unlike and unlikes should
not be treated alike. Likes should be treated alike.
102. What follows is that Article 14 forbids class legislation; it
does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and
transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 32 of 41

ends. Classification to be reasonable should fulfil the following two
tests:
102.1. It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should
be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial
distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped together
in the class from others left out of it.
102.2. The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must
have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question.
103. Thus, Article 14 in its ambit and sweep involves two facets
viz. it permits reasonable classification which is founded on
intelligible differentia and accommodates the practical needs of the
society and the differentia must have a rational relation to the
objects sought to be achieved. Further, it does not allow any kind of
arbitrariness and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is
the fons juris of our Constitution, the fountainhead of justice.
Differential treatment does not per se amount to violation of Article
14 of the Constitution and it violates Article 14 only when there is no
reasonable basis and there are several tests to decide whether a
classification is reasonable or not and one of the tests will be as to
whether it is conducive to the functioning of modern society.”
(emphasis supplied)
65. Also, it is a settled law that policy decisions are not subject to judicial
interference unless they are shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or
manifestly illegal. As this Court has already come to the conclusion that the
Policy of 2018 is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, therefore, the said
policy does not call for any interference. For the same reason, petitioners
reliance on the decision of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (Supra) to contend
that classification in impugned Policy of 2018 is not reasonable and does not
have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is misplaced.
66. There is also no force in the submission that petitioner no.1 should be
granted admission on the basis of legitimate expectation to “Priority-II” as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 33 of 41

University of Delhi, since time immemorial, had been granting admission to
wards of servicemen/ex-servicemen who were disabled, under the “Priority-
II” in all non-medical/non-dental streams/courses. As noted above there was
no policy in place providing for reservation in professional and non-
professional courses except in medical/dental courses, prior to May, 2017.
For the sake of arguments, assuming that there was any such practice, this
Court is of the view that an alleged practice by University of Delhi will not
give rise to any legitimate expectation when it is not based on a legitimate
policy issued by the respondents.
67. It is a settled proposition of law that the legitimacy of an expectation
can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom. Every
such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right and
therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense. Unless a
legal obligation exists, there cannot be legitimate expectation. In this regard
reference may be had to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in State
of Bihar and ors. v. Sachindra Narayan and ors., (2019) 3 SCC 803 ,
wherein it had observed as under –
“21. In the judgment reported as Union of India v. Hindustan
Development Corpn. [Union of India v. Hindustan Development
Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499] , it was held that a pious hope even
leading to moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate
expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred
only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an
established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence .
It was held : (SCC pp. 540 & 546-49, paras 28, 33 & 35)
“28. Time is a three-fold present : the present as we
experience it, the past as a present memory and future as a
present expectation. For legal purposes, the expectation cannot
be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 34 of 41

or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the
ground of a right. However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire
or a hope may be and however confidently one may look to
them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount to an
assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not
attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a
moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation.
The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is
founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established
procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Again it
is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such
expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable.
Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify
into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the
conventional sense .
*
33. On examination of some of these important decisions it is
generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant
sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine
of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a
fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a
promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine
does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the
administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is
involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not
require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding
public interest requires otherwise. In other words where a
person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a
particular decision then decision-maker should justify the
denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public
interest. Therefore even if substantive protection of such
expectation is contemplated that does not grant an absolute
right to a particular person. It simply ensures the circumstances
in which that expectation may be denied or restricted. A case of
legitimate expectation would arise when a body by
representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it
would be within its powers to fulfil. The protection is limited to
that extent and a judicial review can be within those limits. But
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 35 of 41

as discussed above a person who bases his claim on the
doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must
satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has locus standi to
make such a claim. In considering the same several factors
which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present.
The decision taken by the authority must be found to be
arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is
a question of policy, even by way of change of old policy, the
courts cannot interfere with a decision. …
*
35. … It can therefore be seen that legitimate expectation
can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to
judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited. It
would thus appear that there are stronger reasons as to why the
legitimate expectation should not be substantively protected
than the reasons as to why it should be protected. In other
words such a legal obligation exists whenever the case
supporting the same in terms of legal principles of different
sorts, is stronger than the case against it. As observed
in Attorney General for New South Wales case [Attorney
General for New South Wales v. Quinn, (1990) 64 Aust LJR
327] :‘To strike down the exercise of administrative power
solely on the ground of avoiding the disappointment of the
legitimate expectations of an individual would be to set the
courts adrift on a featureless sea of pragmatism. Moreover,
the notion of a legitimate expectation (falling short of a legal
right) is too nebulous to form a basis for invalidating the
exercise of a power when its exercise otherwise accords with
law.’ If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case
amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary,
discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or
violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be
questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14
but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without
anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these
principles. It can be one of the grounds to consider but the
court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative
of these principles warranting interference.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:25.02.2026
20:35:33
W.P.(C) 4338/2025 Page 36 of 41