Territorial Army veteran’s son gets NEET Priority-IV after court finds his medical discharge was mandatory

The petitioner, a NEET (UG) 2026 candidate, sought consideration under Priority-IV for MBBS/BDS Central Pool allotment as the son of a retired Territorial Army Naik. His father sustained an injury during military duty, was placed in Permanent Low Medical Category, and was assessed as having a 30% disability attributable to military service.

The Zila Sainik Board issued an eligibility certificate under Priority-IV, but the respondents later classified the petitioner under Priority-VI, reasoning that his father had been released at his own request rather than boarded out.

The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 226.

1. Whether the petitioner’s father’s release from Territorial Army service, in light of his Low Medical Category status and length of embodied service, prevented the petitioner from qualifying under Priority-IV.

2. Whether the respondents’ reliance on the SOP dated 1 July 2020, rather than the Territorial Army scheme dated 17 January 2011, justified classifying the petitioner under Priority-VI.

The Court applied the Territorial Army scheme dated 17 January 2011, which governed personnel serving in the Territorial Army.

It held that paragraph 7 required discharge of a soldier who became Low Medical Category after completing more than 15 years of embodied service, or upon completing 15 years of total embodied service after retention; paragraph 5 recorded that Territorial Army units had no sheltered appointments.

The Court distinguished the respondents’ reliance on the SOP dated 1 July 2020 and the decision in Master Athrava Trupathi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 4338/2025, because that case did not concern Territorial Army personnel or the 2011 scheme.

The Court found that the father’s injury occurred while performing bona fide military duty, and that he had become Low Medical Category after completing more than 15 years of embodied Territorial Army service.

Under paragraph 7 of the applicable scheme, his discharge was required; accordingly, whether he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement was immaterial to the Priority-IV determination.

The Court therefore concluded that the respondents’ reliance on the “own request” ground and the 2020 SOP did not support the Priority-VI classification.

The respondents were directed to communicate seat availability to the petitioner within 10 days of the order’s upload.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.