Telangana High Court: In a set of writ petitions filed by dependents of Border Security Force (‘BSF’) personnel challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Unaided Non-minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007, (‘2007 Rules’) and the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’), which reserve 1 percent seats for children of ex-servicemen and service personnel of the three wings of Armed Forces and domiciled in the Telangana, the Division Bench of Sujoy Paul*, ACJ., and Renuka Yara, J., dismissed the petitions, holding that the Armed Forces and BSF/ Central Armed Police Force (‘CAPF’) did not form a homogenous class and the State had satisfied the twin test of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Background
The petitioner’s father rendered his services in BSF till his retirement. The petitioner appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (‘NEET’) 2022-23 and secured qualifying marks. There was a provision in the prospectus issued by Respondent 2 wherein 1 percent of seats were reserved for children of Armed Forces Personnel. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Court. The said writ petition was disposed of based on the submissions made by the State Government that the children of the BSF Personnel shall also be considered and that the benefit of reservation as set out in the Rules will be extended. However, the petitioner could not secure a seat in the Academic Year 2022-23 because of her low merit.
The petitioner appeared in NEET in 2024 and applied for the MBBS course. In the prospectus for admission into MBBS and BDS courses, 1 percent of seats were again reserved for only children of Armed Forces Personnel. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Another writ petition was filed against the 2007 and 2017 Rules regarding the same quota. The petitioners also assailed Government Office Memorandum (‘OM’) Nos. 66, 114, and 75.
The principal ground of challenge to the aforesaid provisions was that BSF, Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’), Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (‘ITBP’), and Sashastra Seema Bal (‘SSB’), etc. were part of CAPF. The petitioners contended that confining the quota to children of Armed Forces Personnel, i.e., Army, Navy, and Air Forces was discriminatory.
Issues
-
Whether children of CAPF personnel can be treated on apar with the children of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
-
Whether the classification made by the respondents between children of Armed Forces and CAPF Personnel is a reasonable classification. Whether there exists any intelligible differentia for the same, especially when the respondents have given the benefit of reservation in different courses in Telangana to children of both the Armed Forces and CAPF.
Analysis and Decision
The Court reiterated that to examine the legality of classification, two conditions must be satisfied. First, there must be an intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons grouped together from those who were left out. The phrase intelligible differentia means difference capable of being understood. Second, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law, i.e., the basis of classification must have a nexus with the object of classification. The Court further reiterated that under Article 14, equality before law does not mean that the same law must apply to everyone. It provides that the same law should apply to those who are similarly situated. Likewise, the expression ‘equal protection of law’ envisages that laws must be equally administered among equals. Thus, the Court stated that equality, by no stretch of imagination, can entail sameness. There must be a parity of treatment under parity of conditions.
Noting the above, the Court stated that if the present matter was tested on the anvil of aforesaid principles, it was clear that admittedly, the personnel engaged by the Army, Navy, and Air Force were governed by different set of Acts and Rules and their service conditions were different than the service conditions of BSF/CAPF personnel, including the tenure. In this regard, the Court referred to an OM that showed that CAPF and the Armed Forces of the Union are two different classes.
The Court also referred All India Station Masters’ & Asstt. Station Masters’ Assn. v. General Manager, Central Railway 1959 SCC OnLine SC 83 wherein the Supreme Court held that the Roadside Station Masters and Guards did not form an integrated class since they were recruited and trained separately. Thus, a distinction between the two classes was held not to be violative of the equality code, which only requires the State to treat equals equally. Similarly, in Katyani Dayal v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 245, it was held that Assistant Officers of Railway who are recruited through a competitive examination and those who are recruited on the recommendation of the Unions Public Service Commission do not form an integrated homogeneous class because the objects of recruitment, the tenure, and even the appointing authority are different.
The Court stated that similarly, in the instant case, the Act that governed the services, the method of recruitment, the conditions of services, and the tenure of Armed Forces and CAPF were different, and by no stretch of the imagination, it could be said that the Armed Forces viz., Army, Navy, and Air Force and the BSF/CAPF formed a homogenous class. Thus, the Court held that it could not be said that if 1 percent reservation was confined to only three forces, it amounted to dividing a homogeneous class and creating a class within the same class.
The Court noted that in the previous round of litigation, a concession was given by the State Government in favour of the petitioners. But thereafter, the 2017 Rules were amended to add a ‘note’ which specified that the reservation applied only to the children of Ex-Servicemen and Serving Personnel of the three wings of the Armed Forces viz., Army, Navy, and Air Force who were domiciled in Telangana. Thus, the Court held that any concession or oral statement given before amendment in the 2017 Rules would not cut any ice. The Court added that in the previous round as well, no principle of law was laid down by the Court. Thus, the OMs could not be a reason to declare the impugned Rules as ultra vires.
The Court remarked that undoubtedly, in certain courses in Telangana, the Government provided reservations to the children of CAPF in addition to children of the Army, Navy, and Air Forces. However, the courses were different. Such a decision to provide reservations was based on expert opinions. Merely because in some courses, the reservation was extended to both categories, neither any equality between the two was established, nor any enforceable right was created in favour of the petitioners.
Upon perusal of the OM and government order relied upon by the petitioners, the Court stated that a conjoint reading showed that these were administrative orders/executive instructions. Additionally, the legislative competence for issuing the Rules was not called into question and no administrative orders/executive instructions could be said to be binding de hors the Rules. Thus, the Court held that, as per the aforesaid OM, mandatory directions were issued to provide reservations to ex-CAPF Personnel wards.
Accordingly, the Court held that the State had satisfied the twin test under Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification was reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. There was a clear object for providing reservation of 1 percent seats to children of Armed Forces Personnel. Thus, the impugned Rules could not be deemed unconstitutional for infringing the equality clause enshrined in Article 14. Consequently, both the petitions were dismissed.
[Vangala Vishnu Priya v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 187, decided on 18-03-2025]
*Common Order Authored by: Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Senior Counsel A. Venkatesh, K. Sridhar, and P. Sri Harsha Reddy
For the respondents: Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan, Deputy Solicitor General of India Gadi Praveen Kumar, B. Mukherjee, Government Pleader Mahesh Raje, S. Agastya Sharma and B. Sree Rama Krishna
Buy Constitution of India HERE
