Delhi High Court Upholds Siblings’ Right to Medical Admission Under Defence Quota:
In a significant ruling that underscores the principles of natural justice and equity in educational admissions, the Delhi High Court has quashed the cancellation of admissions for two siblings seeking MBBS seats under the defence quota.
A Landmark Victory for Advocate Vikas Pandey
The case, Kumar Saurabh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 12757/2023), was successfully argued by advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey, who represented the petitioners and secured a favorable order on March 18, 2024.
This decision not only reinstates the petitioners’ admissions but also highlights the court’s emphasis on protecting students from arbitrary administrative actions, marking another triumph in Pandey’s distinguished career in public interest and educational litigation.
Delhi High Court Quashes Admission Cancellation, Upholding Rights of Deceased Sailor’s Siblings
In a significant victory for the petitioners, the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment on March 18, 2024, quashing the cancellation of MBBS admissions for two siblings who were initially admitted under the Defence Category Priority III quota.
The petitioners, Kumar Saurabh and Subhangi Priya, were successfully represented by a legal team including Advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey. The Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, allowed the writ petition, W.P.(C) 12757/2023, securing the petitioners’ readmission and all consequential relief
The case centered on the petitioners’ right to admission under the priority category reserved for Wards of Defence personnel who died while in service with death attributable to military service.
The petitioners are the younger brother and sister of Kumar Shubham, a Sailor in the Indian Navy, who expired while in service on September 16, 2022, a death certified as being attributable to Naval Service.
They were duly issued Dependent Identity Cards of Ex-serviceman (DICES) and Relationship Certificates (Equivalent to Proforma ‘C’) by the Naval Pension Office, which certified them as wards of armed forces personnel entitled to preferential admission under Priority-III.
Based on these documents, the petitioners were provisionally allotted seats in Dr. BSA Medical College & Hospital and NDMC Medical College, both affiliated with the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU).
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Kumar Saurabh and Subhangi Priya, are the brother and sister of the late Kumar Shubham, a sailor in the Indian Navy who tragically passed away on September 16, 2022, while in service.
Shubham’s death was attributed to naval service, making his family eligible for benefits under the defence personnel reservation policy.
Following Shubham’s demise, the Naval Pension Office in Mumbai issued several key documents:
An Indian Navy Service Certificate (INSC) on November 11, 2022, confirming Shubham’s single status and certifying his mother and sister as dependents.
Dependent Identity Cards for Ex-Servicemen (DICES) in March and May 2023 for the petitioners, valid until 2028 and 2025, respectively.
A Dependency Certificate on August 31, 2023, stating that the petitioners were Shubham’s younger siblings and that the family was fully dependent on him.
Relationship Certificates on May 22, 2023, explicitly issued for purposes including admission to higher education, classifying the petitioners under Priority III of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Circular dated November 30, 2017. This priority covers widows/wards of defence personnel who died in service with death attributable to military service.
Armed with these certificates, the petitioners appeared for the NEET UG 2023 examination and were provisionally allotted seats under the Unreserved (Open Defence) quota: Saurabh at Dr. BSA Medical College & Hospital (BSAMCH) and Priya at NDMC Medical College (NDMCMC), both affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU).
However, on September 19, 2023, GGSIPU abruptly cancelled their admissions following a rethink by Brig. Narain of the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB). The RSB questioned whether siblings qualified as “wards” under the defence quota, relying on a February 2023 clarification from the Naval Pension Office that limited “dependents” to spouses, parents, and unmarried/unemployed children—excluding siblings.
This cancellation prompted the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court through a writ petition, challenging the decision as arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and contrary to the MoD’s policy.
Advocate Vikas Pandey’s Strategic Representation
Advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey, leading a team that included, V.K. Pandey, Avanish Kumar, Hemdeep Moran, and Prateek Tiwari and Advocates, meticulously built the case around key legal principles. Pandey argued that the petitioners had submitted all required documents in good faith, and the initial satisfaction expressed by the RSB (countersigned by Brig. Narain) could not be unilaterally reversed without a hearing.
He emphasized that no fault lay with the petitioners, drawing parallels to Supreme Court precedents like Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University (1986) and A. Sudha v. University of Mysore (1987), where students were protected from erroneous administrative decisions.
Pandey contended that the term “wards” in the MoD Circular and GGSIPU’s Admission Brochure (Clause 6.1.2) was not restrictively defined as “dependents” and should be interpreted broadly to include siblings in cases like this, especially given the explicit Relationship Certificates issued for educational purposes.
He highlighted the violation of natural justice, as no show-cause notice was issued before cancellation, and argued that the rethink was flawed since it conflated “dependents” with “wards.”
His arguments resonated with the court, showcasing Pandey’s expertise in navigating complex reservation policies and administrative law. Known for his proactive approach in cases involving education, defence benefits, and public welfare, Pandey has a track record of securing justice for underserved families, including those of armed forces personnel. This victory adds to his portfolio of successful litigations, reinforcing his reputation as a dedicated advocate who combines legal acumen with empathy for clients facing bureaucratic hurdles.
The Court’s Reasoning and Judgment
In a detailed 39-page oral judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, the court sided unequivocally with the petitioners. Key highlights from the ruling include:
- No Fault on Petitioners’ Part: The court noted that the petitioners acted transparently, submitting all defence-issued documents. The initial admission was granted after the RSB verified and countersigned their eligibility, making the subsequent cancellation unjust.
- Violation of Natural Justice: The cancellation was deemed arbitrary as it occurred without prior notice or an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard, breaching fundamental principles.
- Misapplication of Terms: The court criticized the RSB’s reliance on the “dependents” clarification, pointing out that the relevant policy uses “wards,” which is broader and not explicitly limited to children or spouses. It referenced Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College (2007), where even cousins were protected under similar circumstances.
- Equity and Precedents: Citing Supreme Court cases, the judge emphasized that students should not suffer for administrative errors. The court also applied the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit (act of court shall prejudice no one), ensuring the petitioners’ attendance shortage due to litigation would not bar them from exams.
The petition was allowed, with the cancellation quashed. The petitioners were directed to be readmitted to their respective MBBS courses with all consequential benefits. Notably, the court refrained from definitively interpreting “wards,” leaving it for future cases.
The Cancellation and Legal Challenge
The GGSIPU subsequently issued a letter on September 19, 2023, cancelling the petitioners’ admissions. This cancellation was based on an email from the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB), which, contrary to its previously issued certificate, categorically stated that the brother was “not eligible for admission… as ward of defence personnel”.
The Court’s Favorable Ruling
The High Court allowed the petition, effectively ruling in favor of the students and quashing the arbitrary cancellation:
Quashing of Cancellation: The Court explicitly quashed and set aside the impugned cancellation letter dated September 19, 2023, and held that the petitioners are entitled to be readmitted to their respective MBBS courses.
Attendance Relief: Recognizing that the petitioners missed classes due to the pending litigation, the Court applied the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one). It clarified that the petitioners shall not be restrained from appearing in their examination on the ground of shortage of attendance during the period the litigation was pending
Implications and Broader Impact
This judgment sets a precedent for protecting defence families from whimsical administrative reversals, ensuring that reservation policies serve their intended purpose of supporting wards of fallen heroes. It may prompt clearer guidelines from the MoD and universities on terms like “wards” to avoid future disputes.
For advocate Vikas Pandey, this win is a testament to his commitment to justice. As he stated in post-judgment remarks, “This case was about more than admissions—it’s about honoring the sacrifices of our armed forces and ensuring their families aren’t left in the lurch.” Families of defence personnel across India may find renewed hope in pursuing similar claims, thanks to this ruling.
The full judgment is available on the Delhi High Court’s website, serving as a beacon for equitable application of reservation policies in education.
