Shagun Malik vs Union Of India And Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010486882026
Date of decision: 15.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 14956/2026 & CM APPL. 70133/2026
SHAGUN MALIK
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Mr. Roshan Lal
Goel, Ms. Anju Gupta, Ms. Sushma
Priyadarshna, Mr. Ashish Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshat Agrawal, SPC with Mr.
Raj Karn, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following prayers :-
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari quashing Communication No.
371/Adm/Med Seat/Vol-I dated 29.09.2026 issued by
Respondent Nos. 2/3 declining the Petitioner's claim under
Priority-IV;
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider
and determine the Petitioner's Priority-IV claim after
examining the complete service and medical record of No.
1040644 IX Naik Vikas Malik (Retd.), his precise period of
embodied service, Letter No. 34456/GS/TA-3 dated 17.01
.2011 and underlying applicable instructions, his
Permanent Low Medical Category/retention history, the
precise legal provision and circumstances governing his
release, and the applicable Priority-IV policy/SOP; and, if
the prescribed Priority-IV conditions are found satisfied,
accord consequential benefit subject to merit and other
applicable admission requirements;
c) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, direct the competent
Respondent authority to undertake a fresh, reasoned and
time-bound determination of the Priority-IV claim within
such period as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate
having regard to the ongoing admission process;
d) Pending disposal of the Writ Petition and/or fresh
determination, direct the Respondents to provisionally
protect and preserve the Petitioner's candidature in the
ongoing MBBS/BDS Central Pool allotment process for
Academic Session 2026-27, subject to further orders and
without creation of equity;
e) If necessary for preservation of the subject matter, direct
the concerned Respondents to keep available one
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

appropriate MBBS/BDS Central Pool seat, subject to
further orders, merit and applicable admission
requirements; and...”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a candidate for
NEET (UG) 2026 bearing Roll No. 4409107589 and is the son of No.
1040644IX Naik Vikas Malik (Retd.), who served in 114 Infantry
Battalion (Territorial Army) JAT.
3. During his military service, the petitioner’s father sustained an injury
while on military duty in Samba Sector, Jammu & Kashmir, and was
thereafter placed in Permanent Low Medical Category A2(P). His
disability was subsequently assessed at 30% for life and was recorded
as attributable to military service. Thereafter, the Service Pension
along with Disability Element was sanctioned.
4. The Zila Sainik Board, Muzaffarnagar, after verification of the
relevant records, issued an Eligibility Certificate dated 28.07.2026,
recording the Petitioner’s claim under Priority-IV.
5. However, upon document verification on 29.09.2026, the
Respondents declined Priority-IV and treated the Petitioner under
Priority-VI, principally on the ground that his father had been released
from service “at his own request” and not boarded out.
6. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
7. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to
the relevant rules in this regard, dated 17.01.2011, which read as
under:
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

8. He particularly relies on paragraph Nos. 2, 5, 7 and 10 (d).
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

9. The application of the father of the petitioner dated 12.07.2021 made
to the Commanding Officer is also relevant and reads as under:


Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

10. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents, per contra , states
that the father of the petitioner has rightly been categorized in Priority
VI. He states that the father of the petitioner was never boarded out by
the authorities and took voluntary retirement. He draws my attention
to the relevant rules in this regard, which read as under:
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

11. He states that a perusal of the paragraph No. 1 and 3 of the not-
eligible categories shows that the armed forces personnel, who were
retired/discharged from the service at their own request, are not
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

eligible under Priority IV. He further states that the armed forces
personnel, who were retired/discharged on fulfilling the conditions of
enrolment or having reached the stage of discharge, are also not
eligible.
12. In my view, the petitioner’s father was serving in the territorial army.
The scheme dated 17.01.2011 is specific to the personnel appointed
under the territorial army and therefore, applies to the petitioner’s
case.
13. It is also not in dispute that the injury sustained by the father of the
petitioner occurred in the performance of a bona fide military duty.
14. A perusal of paragraph 7 shows that the soldiers who become Lower
Medical Category (“LMC”), after completing more than 15 years of
embodied service, or on completion of 15 years of total embodied
service subsequent to grant of retention, will have to be discharged.
15. The respondents have no discretion in this regard as paragraph 7
provides for the discharge of such soldiers who have become LMC
and have completed more than 15 years of embodied services.
Further, paragraph 5 records that there are no sheltered appointments
available in the Territorial Army Units.
16. The father of the petitioner, admittedly, became LMC and had
completed more than 15 years of embodied service in the Territorial
Army.
17. Hence, even if the application for voluntary retirement had been
moved/not moved, the same was immaterial as in terms of paragraph
7, and the father of the petitioner was compulsorily required to be
discharged.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15

18. Hence, it is the aforesaid paragraph which will be applicable to the
petitioner and not those relied upon by Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel,
of SOP dated 01.07.2020.
19. That being so, the basis for categorising the petitioner under Priority-
VI is not borne out in view of the discussion above.
20. The judgment in W.P.(C) 4338/2025 in the matter of Master Athrava
Trupathi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors . dated 24.02.2026, is also
distinguishable on facts of the present case, as the personnel in the
concerned case did not belong to the Territorial Army and the scheme
dated 17.01.2011 was not in issue.
21. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be
treated as belonging to Priority-IV and shall be so accommodated
against a seat, subject to availability. The respondents shall
communicate the availability of a seat to the petitioner within 10 days
from the date of uploading of this Order.
22. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.



JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 15, 2026/sp
(corrected and uploaded on 17.10.2026)






Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:15