A.P. Chowdhri, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's writ petition No. 9242 of 1989. The sole question raised is - -whether sub -categorisation of reservation of seats in Medical College and Dental College under the Maharishi Dayanand University relating to Ex -servicemen's children between officers on the one hand and JCOs and other ranks on the other hand, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE Appellant's son appeared in a combined P.M.T. test for admission to MBBS/BDS courses in the Medical College/Dental College under the M.D. University Rohtak, in June 1989. He applied for being considered against the sub -category of son of a disabled Army Officer. He did not figure in the merit list. He, therefore, challenged the constitutional validity of sub -categorisation of reservation between children of deceased or disabled JCOs and other ranks on the one hand and children of deceased/disabled officers on the other hand, in the prospectus, under the instructions of the Government. In the return filed by the Registrar of the M.D. University on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, it was stated that the Appellant having competed with others on the basis of reservation notified in the prospectus and having failed to be selected was estopped from challenging the validity of the sub -categorisation of the category relating to Ex -Servicemen. The ratio of 2 : 1 between children of JCOs and other ranks and the officers was sought to be justified on the ground that the number of the former far exceeded the number of the latter. The reservation had been made by the competent bodies of the University after due deliberation of the relevant facts and circumstances. It was further stated that the rules and regulations in force in other government Institutions and other Universities were not relevant and the M.D. University was not bound to follow those other Universities or Institutions. It was also stated that the said sub -categorisation had been in existence since the academic session 1985 -86 without any challenge.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 9 was impleaded on his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He adopted the pleas taken in the written statement filed by Respondents 1 and 2 and also added in the written Statement filed by, him that in the Prospectus for the year 1984 -85 there was 100 per cent reservation for the children of JCOs and other ranks to the exclusion of the officer under the category of Ex -servicemen. This was challenged, by the daughter of an officer, as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, in Civil Writ Petition No. 4491 of 1984. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on November 8, 1984. The, unsuccessful Petitioner thereafter filed SLP No. 1486, of 1984, which was also, dismissed by the Supreme Court. In other words, 100 per cent reservation in the category relating to Ex -servicemen for the children of JCOs and other ranks to the exclusion of the children of the Officers, was affirmed by the Apex Court. The present reservation in favour of JCOs to the extent of 66 per cent as against 33 per cent in favour of children of officers in the category relating to Ex -servicemen was, therefore, stated to be altogether valid and justified. It was further stated that the number of JCOS and other ranks was almost 99 per cent as against Officers who accounted for only 1 per cent or even less. In an Infantry Battalion, it was pointed out the total strength is 1000 out of whom the number or officers is 10 and that of JCOs and other ranks the balance 990. The Respondents mentioned figures relating to Ex -servicemen of District karnal. According to these figures, as on March 31, 1988 the total number of Ex -servicemen in the district were 21, 151 and the number' of officers was only 107. It was, therefore, stated that reservation to the extent of 33 per cent for the children of 1 per cent officers was far in excess of the due share and there was no question of the same being unreasonable. It was also mentioned that the minimum basic pay of the officers was Rs. 2,300 while the minimum basic pay of other ranks was Rs. 870. For the officers, the minimum educational qualification was graduation. For JCOs and other ranks no minimum educational qualification had been prescribed. As a class, therefore, JCOs and other ranks were socially and educationally backward compared to the officers. It was also stated that for officers in the Army, accommodation was available to the extent of 100 per cent as against the other ranks for whom accommodation Was available only to the extent of 14 per cent. Perforce, 86 per cent of the other ranks cannot, therefore, keep their families and thus tide education of their children suffers for want of proper supervision and guidance of the father. It was also pointed out that if the sub -categorisation were not followed, in the present admission, 60 per cent of the seats reserved for the Ex -servicemen would go to the children of officers and 40 per cent to the children of JCOs and Ex -servicemen on the basis of the marks secured by the two sets of children.;