- (1.) This petition under Art. 226 to the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in any of the Engineering College under the reserved category of Defence Killed or permanently disabled in action during hostilities/wars of during peace time and for quashing the decision of the respondents cancelling the candidature of the petitioner.
(2.) The facts as stated in the petition briefly are that the petitioner qualified All India Senior School Certificate Examination, 1995 from the Central Board of Secondary. Education, and secured high grade. The respondent-University issued a Notification / Information booklet in relation to Pre-Engineering Test (PET), 1995, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is averred that the father of the petitioner is serving as Lt. Col. in Indian Army who has been categorised as permanent disabled. His disability is direct and proximate result of his posting in the State of Assam to meet out the insurgency operation where he was posted in between July, 1988 to December, 1990. Because of the tremendous anxiety and surrounding circumstances developed he became the patient of Non Insuline Dependant Diabetes Mellitus which has been resulted into permanent disability. In pursuance of the notification/advertisement issued by the respondents, petitioner submitted application form for appearing in PET Examination, 1995, It is alleged that in the application form the petitioner specifically mentioned that her father is serving in Indian Army. It is further averred that she had submitted that her candidature may be considered against the quota reserved for the candidates belonging to the category of 'permanently disabled Defence Personnel. The respondent-University declared the result of PET Examination, 1995 on 12-7-1995 which was published in Hindi daily newspaper known as Rajasthan Patrika and the Roll No. allotted to the petitioner in the said examination tas 3511 and she was declared as successful in the examination and the category mentioned in the newspaper against her name was D. K. (Defence Killed). In pursuance of the notice received from the University, petitioner appeared for interview before the Interview Board on 29-7-1995. It has been further stated that the total seats reserved in the category of D. K. are "26". It has been averred in the petition that though the petitioner had been declared qualified, but at the time of interview she was informed that she cannot be given admission in any of the Engineering Colleges for the reason that he does not belongs to the category of D. K. and her father is serving in Indian Army. Thereupon, petitioner's father submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor and Chairman, Selection Committee PET, 1995, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Since nothing was communicated to the petitioner reminder was sent on 30-7-1995. It is further alleged that the petitioner and her father approached to the Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan on 31-7-1995 and on 1-8-1995, but no action was taken on her request. It is alleged that the respondents have cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the father of the petitioner is still serving in Indian Army. Petitioner feeling aggrieved against the cancellation of her candidature for being admitted in any of the Engineering Colleges of the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court in the instant petition. In view of the urgency of the facts of the case, the case was directed to be listed for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the same. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, the respondent-University has stated that the petitioner does not fall within the quota reserved for the category of dependents of Defence Killed/disabled for Defence Personnel/para military forces killed or permanently, disabled in action during Hostilities/wars or during peace time. It has further been stated that in order to get the benefit under the reserved quota as stated above, the petitioner was required to have proved that the permanent disability was caused in action during hostilities/wars or during peace time and as per the Certificate itself the father of the petitioner had been suffering from 'diabetes mellitus' disability on 24-1-1991 while serving in Jaipur. It was has been further alleged that even in the certificate it has nowhere been stated that the alleged disability was caused in action during hostilities/war or during peace time. It has been urged in para 7 of the counter affidavit that since the petitioner had filled the columns provided for defence killed or permanently disabled category (05) along with the certificate dt. 8-3-1995, hence she was shown in that category, but at the time of interview her certificate was examined and scrutinised then it was found that she was not entitled to the benefit of reserved quota. In para 8 of the counter affidavit it has been admitted that it is true that there were total 26 seats in the category of D.K. (05) but as there were only 3 candidates who had secured 33% and above marks in each paper of the PET 1995 and the petitioner was the 3rd applicant who had secured 33% and above marks in the said examination, but petitioner could not entitle to have reservation for D.K. (05) in the absence of any documentary proof for getting the benefit under the reserved quota. It is emphatically denied by the respondents that the petitioner falls within the category of D. K. (05). The respondents have further denied that the candidature of the petitioner has not been cancelled on the ground that petitioner's father is serving in Indian Army, but it has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner does not fall within the category claimed by her in her admission form.
(3.) I have heard Mr. R. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U. N. Bhandari, Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Naina Saraff. counsel for the respondent No. 2 Mr. R. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that petitioner's father incurred permanent disability while he was posted at Assam during insurgency operation and as such, the petitioner's case was squarely covered under the reserved category reserved for Defence Personnel who have been permanently disabled during hostilities /wars or peace time. Mr. Mathur specifically invited the attention of the Court to the 'Instructions for the guidance of candidates intending to appear at the Pre-Engineering Test, 1995 issued by Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur (Rajasthan) and specifically invited the attention of the Court to the Instruction No. 2 (c)(iii), the relevant portion of which reads as under :- "In case of candidates belonging to the category of physically Handicapped/Children of Ex-Servicemen/Children of Defence Personnel/Para Military Forces killed or permanently disabled in action during the hositilities/wars or during peace time, the certificate from the competent authority in proof of his/her being of that category.";