HC upholds 1 percent reservation in MBBS courses for Children of Ex-Servicemen, Armed Forces Personnel

Hyderabad: The question of whether the children of CAPF Personnel can be treated at par with the children of Army, Navy and Air Force for MBBS and BDS admissions was recently considered in the Telangana High Court. Observing that the classification made in the reservation norms was reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, the Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of reservation rules for MBBS and BDS admissions, which reserve 1% of seats exclusively for the children of ex-servicemen and service personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force. With this, the high court dismissed a petition challenging the exclusion of children of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) personnel, including those from the Border Security Force (BSF).

The petitioners, dependents of BSF personnel, called in question 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, (‘Rules of 2007’) and the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission, (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (‘Rules of 2017’), which confine the reservation of 1% seats for children of ex-servicemen and service personnel of three wings of Armed Forces viz., Army, Navy and Air Force and who domiciled in the Telangana State based on the permanent address/home-town declared by them while joining in service and as recorded in their service registers.

Represented by Senior Counsel A. Venkatesh, the petitioners contended that the rules were unconstitutional, as they denied similar benefits to children of BSF and other CAPF personnel, despite their comparable service to the nation.

Factual Background:

The petitioners had appeared for the National Eligibility-Entrance Test (NEET) 2024, secured 455 marks and applied for the MBBS course. The authorities (one of the respondents in the case- Respondent 2) issued the prospectus/regulations for admission into MBBS and BDS courses under competent authority quota for the Academic Year 2024-25. Clause E of said prospectus provides horizontal reservation for special categories wherein 1% of seats were reserved for children of Armed Forces Personnel.

The petitioner’s father served in the BSF [102 BN (Battalion)] starting June 4, 1986, and took voluntary retirement on April 30, 1997. The petitioner appeared for the NEET 2022-23 and secured qualifying marks. In the previous prospectus, a provision stated that only children of Armed Forces Personnel were eligible for the 1% quota. However, the petitioner was unable to secure a seat in the Academic Year 2022-23 due to her lower merit. With the Rules of 2007 and 2017 hindering the petitioners' chances for consideration under the 1% quota, they challenged these rules.

Contentions:

Petitioners:

The principal ground of challenge to the aforesaid provisions was that Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) etc., are part of Central Armed Police Force (‘CAPF’). This is reflected in Official Memorandum (‘O.M.’), dated 18.03.2011. Another O.M., dated 23.11.2012, showed that the Cabinet Committee on Security has approved the proposal to declare retired CAPF Personnel as ex-CAPF Personnel. “The impugned Rules whereby the benefit of reservation of 1% in seats is confined to children of personnel of Army, Navy and Air Force are discriminatory and bad in law,” the counsel appearing for the petitioners argued.

“The Border Security Force Act, 1968 (‘BSF Act’) provides constitution and regulation of Armed Forces of union for ensuring security of border of India and the matters connected therewith. Section 4 of the BSF Act clearly provides about the formation of Armed Force i.e., BSF for ensuring the security of borders of India. Thus, for all practical purposes BSF is an Armed Force of the country. BSF, as name suggests takes care of sensitive areas of borders of the country and personnel working therein are subjected to same kinds of hardship and sacrifice their lives. Thus, depriving the children of BSF personnel from reservation of 1% seats is arbitrary, unjust and amounts to unreasonable classification, which hits Article 14 of the Constitution,” the counsel contended.

Reliance is placed on the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tummala Supriya v. National Medical Commission, wherein the Government, after obtaining instructions, made a statement before the said High Court that children of CAPF Personnel shall be considered for reservation for the purpose of the MBBS course in the session 2024-25.

Respondents:

The counsels representing the state and concerned authorities pointed out the differences in the governing of the particular forces. It was submitted that the BSF/Paramilitary Forces and main Armed Forces i.e. Army, Navy and Air Force, are governed by different sets of Acts and Rules. Their recruitment methods, conditions of service and pay scales, etc., are different. The Paramilitary Forces work under the Ministry of Home, whereas the Armed Forces are governed by the directions of the Ministry of Defence.

Additional Advocate General heavily relied on the Order of Ministry of Defence dated 25.02.2025, to bolster the submission that Paramilitary Forces cannot be equated with Armed Forces and that it is open to the Government to provide reservation without affecting the existing reservation for the Armed Forces category.

It was further contended that released, retired or discharged personnel of Armed Forces have to strive hard for their reemployment on release from Army, Navy and Air Force. Thus, they are not in a position to provide proper parental guidance to their children when it is most needed. On the other hand, since CAPF Personnel serve till 60 years of service, they do not face such crisis, the counsels argued.

The conundrum, findings and conclusion:

Deliberating on the rival contentions, the bench observed that in no uncertain terms, it was made clear that horizontal reservation of 1% is confined to the children of CAP/ex-servicemen to the extent of 1%. “A conjoint reading of G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.75 leaves no room for any doubt that benefit of 1% horizontal reservation is confined to the children of Armed Forces viz., Army, Navy and Air Force,” it noted.

The conundrum in the instant case was whether the petitioners/children of BSF Personnel were sailing in the same boat. In other words, whether the children of CAPF Personnel can be treated at par with the children of Army, Navy and Air Force.

Ancillary legal question was whether classification made by the respondents between children of Armed Forces and CAPF Personnel is a reasonable classification or not and whether there exists any intelligible differentia for the same, more-so, when the respondents have given the benefit of reservation in different courses in Telangana to both children of Armed Forces as well as children of CAPF.

The bench observed that to examine the legality of classification, two conditions must be satisfied.

1. There must be an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others left out of the group.

2. The differentia must have a rationale relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law, that is, the basis of classification must have a nexus with the object of classification

On the contention of the impugned regulations infringing Article 14 of the Constitution, the bench referred to the observations laid down by the Supreme Court of India while interpreting Article 14 of the Constitution which speaks about ‘equality before the law and equal protection of the laws’. Reference was made to the judgments in Gauri Shanker v. Union of India (1994) and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).

“Equality before law does not mean that the same law must apply to everyone. It provides that same law should apply to those who are similarly situated…”

“Equality, thus, by no stretch of imagination, can entail sameness. There must be a parity of treatment under parity of conditions…”

“If the present matter is tested on the envil of aforesaid principles, it will be clear like noon day that admittedly, the personnel engaged by Army, Navy and Air Force are governed by different set of Acts/Rules and their service conditions are different than the service conditions of BSF/CAPF personnel. The tenure of service of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel is different than the BSF personnel,” the bench noted.

The bench observed that while some reservations for CAPF personnel exist in other state courses, the decision to extend such reservations is based on expert opinions and does not create an enforceable right for the petitioners in this case. It said,

“No doubt, in certain courses in the State of Telangana, the Government in addition to children of Army, Navy and Air Force provides reservation to the children of CAPF as well. However, the courses are different. Such a decision to provide reservation is based on expert opinions. Merely because in some courses reservation is extended to both categories, neither equality between the two is established nor any enforceable right, is created in favour of the present petitioners.”

Ultimately, the court upheld the existing rules, stating that they do not violate the equality provisions under Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition challenging the exclusion of CAPF personnel’s children from the 1% reservation for medical admissions was, therefore, dismissed.

“In our judgment, the respondents have satisfied the twin test. The classification is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. There is a clear object sought to be achieved to provide reservation of 1% seats to children of Armed Forces i.e, Army, Navy and Air Force. The basis of classification has a nexus with the object of the classification.

In view of forgoing analysis, the impugned Rules cannot be said to be unconstitutional in nature infringing the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, both the petitions are dismissed and as a consequence, the ad interim order stands vacated although, reluctantly…”

To view the HC judgment, click here