G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) Present petition is an unfortunate case where a dependent of Ex-Serviceman, who was killed in action on 19.10.1999 in an encounter in the Operation, namely, OP Rakshak (OP Vijay) and has been recognised as a "Battle Casualty", has to fight for admission and satisfy the authorities that she is entitled for the benefit of reservation under the Wards of Ex. Serviceman Category. The certificate of Battle Casualty, issued by the Army Headquarters reads as under: "TO WHOM SOEVER IT MAY CONCERN It is certified that IC-49485X MAJ GURPREET SINGH was granted commission in the Army on 09 Jun 1990 (PRC) and killed on 19 Oct 1999 in an encounter with militants in "OP-VIJAY (OP RAKSHAK)". The death of the officer has been classified as BATTLE CASULTY vide this Headquarters letter No. 12821/47/99/OPR/ORG 3 (D) dated 04 Nov 1999. As per records maintained at Integrated Headquarter of MoD (Army) details of his family are as under:- JUDGEMENT_41_LAWS(P&H)8_2016.jpg
(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner had studied her +2 from DAV Public School, Phase 10, Mohali, on the basis of which, she was eligible to apply under Clause 16 of the Prospectus (Annexure P1) for admission in the MBBS course for the academic session 2015. As per the reservation provided under Clause 20 to the defence personnel to the extent of 1%, preference is to be given to the wards of Defence Personnel killed in terrorists action. As per Clause 6 Part-I of the Prospectus, such ward would come under Category 22. The requirements under Category 22 to furnish the necessary certificates is prescribed in the format which is reproduced as under: "CATEGORIES CODE-22 TO 27 CERTIFICATE TO BE FURNISHED BY WARDS OF DEFENCE PERSONNEL KILLED OR DISABLED TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OR MORE IN ACTION, WARDS OF GALLENTARY AWARDEES AND WARDS OF SERVING DEFENCE PERSONNEL Certified that Mr./Ms.__________Son/Daughter of Sh.___________resident of __________ is/was father/mother/guardian of Sh./Mrs. ______________(Name of the candidate) has been/is: i) Killed in action. ii) disabled in action to the extent of 50% or above and Boarded out of service. iii) Died while in service and Death attributed to military service iv) Disabled in service and Boarded out with diseasable attributed to military service. v) Gallantry award/other award winners both in service/retired. vi) Serving Defence Personnel/Ex.serviceman Date: (Official Seal) Signature of Commanding Officer =========================================================================== Secretary District Sainik Welfare Note: The candidates seeking admission against above category should produce a certificate from the Army Headquarters or the Commanding Officer of the Unit in the case of serving defence personnel and Army headquarters or Commanding Officer of the last armed Unit or Secretary Zila Sainik Board countersigned by the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board as the case may be in the case of Ex-defence personnel. In doubtful cases of Ex-defence personnel, discharge certificate may be asked for." Petitioner, accordingly, furnished the requisite certificate dated 20.05.2015 (Annexure P3), which was issued by the Army Headquarters. On an objection being raised, the said certificate was also got countersigned by the Secretary of the Zila Sainik Board, Panchkula, which would be clear from photocopy of the said certificate, appended as Annexure P3. An objection was sought to be raised on 15.09.2015 (Annexure P4) that the said certificate did not have the counter signatures of the District Sainik Welfare Officer and the Director, Defence Services, Punjab, Chandigarh. Thereafter, another objection was raised on 21.09.2015 (Annexure P5) to the same effect that the countersigned certificate be made available by 24.09.2015, as required vide the earlier communication, failing which, the seat would be cancelled and would be offered to the candidate next in the waiting list. In such circumstances, the petitioner was forced to approach this Court and the interim order dated 24.09.2015 had been issued in her favour that her admission shall not be disturbed, after noticing the above background.
(3.) Respondent-State, in its reply, filed by respondent No.3, averred that the residence of the petitioner is Village Tepla, District Ambala, Haryana and therefore, the benefit of this category cannot be claimed in the State of Punjab. It has been averred that the Director, Sainik Services Welfare Board, in the communication dated 17.09.2015, had informed that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualifications for admission to Category Code 22. It had been found that her father did not belong to Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur and therefore, was not eligible for admission. The defence taken was that reservation would only be for the candidates who were dependents of the defence personnel belonging to the State of Punjab and not to the other states.;