Delhi High Court
Ayushi Through: Rahul Kumar Singh vs Delhi Technological University & Ors. on 23 July, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23rd July, 2015
+ W.P.(C) No.6671/2015
AYUSHI THROUGH: RAHUL KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anoopam N. Prasad, Ms.
Vasundhara Nagrath and Mr. Satyam
Thareja, Advs.
Versus
DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ORS... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat & Ms. Latika
Chaudhary, Advs. for R-1&2.
Mr. Raman Duggal, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The petitioner, an aspirant for admission to the Bachelor of
Engineering (B.E.) / Bachelor of Technology (B. Tech) programme of the
respondent No.1 Delhi Technological University (DTU) in the academic
year 2015-16, has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent
University; i) to grant to the petitioner the benefit of 5% reservation for
children belonging to Priority V of the Defence Category; ii) to recognize
the Gallantry Awards awarded to the father of the petitioner; and, (iii) to
restrain the respondent University from displaying its list of provisionally
selected candidates.
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 1 of 20
2. It is the case of the petitioner:
(i) that the respondent University in its Information Brochure of
the Joint Admission Counselling for the year 2015 has
stipulated that 5% of the total seats are reserved for children
belonging to the "Defence Category" in the following priority:-
"Priority I - Widows/wards of Defense Personnel/Para Military
Personnel killed in action. Required Certificate: Proof in Original.
Priority II - Wards of serving Defense personnel and ex-
servicemen/Para Military Personnel disabled in action. Required
Certificate: Original disability certificate clearly indicating the
disability is attributable to Military Services.
Priority III - Widows/wards of Defense Personnel/Para-Military
Personnel who died in peace time with death attributable to Military
Service. Required Certificate: Original death certificate clearly
indicating the cause of death is attributable to Military Services.
Priority IV - Wards of Defense Personnel/Para Military Personnel
disabled in peace time with disability attributable to Military Service.
Required Certificate: Original disability certificate clearly indicating
the disability is attributable to Military Services.
Priority V - Wards of serving Defense Personnel and Ex-servicemen
para-Military / police personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry
Awards: -
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 2 of 20
(1) Param Vir Chakra
(2) Ashok Chakra
(3) Sarvottam Yudh Seva Medal
(4) Mahavir Chakra
(5) Kirti Chakra
(6) Uttam Yudh Seva Medal
(7) Vir Chakra
(8) Shaurya Chakra
(9) Yudh Seva Medal
(10) Sena/ Nau Sena/ Vayusena Medal*
Priority VI - Wards of defense Ex-servicemen. Required Certificate:
Original ex-servicemen Identity Card/discharge book/PPO (Pension
Payment Order).
Priority VII - Wards of Serving Defense personnel. Required
Certificate: Original Service identity Card and dependent card/
certificate issued by the competent authority.
Note: -
*This medal is awarded for Gallantry as well as for distinguished
service. Accordingly it is notified in correspondence as under:
(a) Sena Medal (G)/ Nau Sena Medal (G)/ Vayu Sena Medal
(G) for the medal awarded for Gallantry.
(b) Sena Medal (D)/ Nau Sena Medal (D)/ Vayu Sena Medal
(D) for the medal awarded for Distinguished Service.
However, for the purpose for reservation, only notification which
states that the Sena Medal has been awarded for Gallantry will be
accepted and the Sena Medal for Distinguished Services will not be
considered."
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 3 of 20
(ii) that the father of the petitioner, currently posted as
Inspector, Delhi Police was awarded two Gallantry Medals
- (a) Police Medal for Gallantry vide Notification dated 28th
November, 2005; and (b) 1st Bar to Police Medal for
Gallantry vide Notification dated 12th February, 2007;
(iii) that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has
issued a Certificate dated 11th June, 2015 to the effect that
the petitioner is eligible for education concession for
admission in Delhi University against the Armed Forces
Quota under Priority V;
(iv) that the petitioner went to the respondent University on 13 th
July, 2015 for document verification but the documents of
the petitioner were not accepted on the ground that
Gallantry Awards awarded to the father of the petitioner do
not fall under Priority V of the Information Brochure
aforesaid of the respondent University;
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 4 of 20
(v) that the action of the respondent University of denying the
aforesaid benefit of reservation under the Defence Category
to the petitioner is illegal;
(vi) that the list of tem awards included in Priority V (supra)
cannot be construed as an exhaustive list inasmuch as it
does not contain the word "only";
(vii) that the ten awards listed under Priority V (supra) pertain
primarily to Gallantry Awards awarded to defence
personnel and do not include any awards awarded to police
personnel or Para military Forces;
(viii) that Priority V (supra) being inclusive of "police personnel",
the Gallantry Awards awarded to police personnel cannot
be excluded from the list of Gallantry Awards to recipients
of whom the benefit under Priority V shall enure;
(ix) that inclusion in Priority V of only some of the Gallantry
Awards is arbitrary and bad in law;
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 5 of 20
(x) that the respondent University is discriminating against the
Gallantry Awards awarded to Police personnel.
3. Notice of the petition was issued on 14th July, 2015 for 16th July,
2015, when considering the urgency expressed, with consent, the counsels
were finally heard without calling for a counter affidavit and judgment
reserved.
4. It may however be noted that the counsel for the petitioner on 16 th
July, 2014 stated that he had filed an application to place additional
documents on record. Since the said application had not been listed, copy
thereof along with copies of the documents sought to be filed were taken on
record and have also been considered.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has argued:
(a) that the Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 3rd June, 1994 to
the Chief Secretaries of all States / Union Territories though
confirming that education is a State subject and universities are
autonomous bodies, recommended standardization of
preference for admission in defence quota, to bring about
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 6 of 20
uniformity in the States and Union Territories and further
prescribed the seven categories aforesaid in respect of wards of
Defence Category and requested for the said prioritisation to be
followed in admission to medical / professional colleges;
(b) that the Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Division) vide letter
dated 21st July, 2009 to University of Delhi recommended that
wards of Police personnel who are recipients of Gallantry
Awards viz. President‟s Police Medal for Gallantry and Police
Medal for Gallantry awarded by Ministry of Home Affairs be
also made eligible for reservation in admission in various
courses in the University of Delhi against Priority V of the seats
reserved for defence category;
(c) that the Deputy Registrar (Academic) of the University of Delhi
vide letter dated 27th July, 2009 to the Faculty of Technology,
University of Delhi informed of the inclusion of the police
personnel who are recipients of Gallantry Awards viz.
President‟s Police Medal for Gallantry and Police Medal for
Gallantry awarded by the Ministry of Home Affairs under
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 7 of 20
Priority V of the Defence Category for the purpose of availing
concession in admission of their wards under the aforesaid
Defence Quota of 5%;
(d) that the University of Delhi vide Circular dated 22 nd May, 2014
has updated the guidelines for admission to various
undergraduate and postgraduate courses and thereunder has
included President‟s Police Medal for Gallantry and Police
Medal for Gallantry in Priority V.
6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent University contended that
the matter is no longer res integra. Attention was invited to the judgment of
this Court in Hridaya Bhushan Vs. Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology
MANU/DE/2145/2013.
7. The counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder, in response to the Court‟s
query, contended that the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions
(Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-
Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act,
2007 (in short "Delhi Professional Colleges Act") is not applicable to the
respondent University.
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 8 of 20
8. I may at the outset state that a plain reading of the Clause aforesaid in
the brochure published by the respondent University, to which there is no
challenge, and with the terms contained wherein the admissions to the
respondent University are to abide, does not show that the list of Gallantry
Awards mentioned therein is only illustrative. Ordinarily, whenever the
items included in a list are not intended or meant to be exhaustive, words
such as "viz.", "etc", "and the like", "and others", "inter alia", "such as"
"namely" are added at appropriate place. Non mention of any of such
words, is ordinarily indicative of the list or the bouquet of words including
only the items contained therein and nothing else. In such an eventuality,
ejusdem generis interpretation cannot be adopted. I am therefore of the
opinion that the petitioner / her father, on a reading of the brochure, could
not possibly have understood the said clause as being inclusive of the medals
awarded to the father of the petitioner.
9. The „Note‟ at the end of the clause aforesaid, in my view, was / is
further indication, even to a person not versed in principles of interpretation
of documents, that the list of Gallantry Awards contained therein is
exhaustive. The Note, with respect to "Sena / Nau Sena / Vayusena Medal"
clarifies that the benefit conferred by the Clause is to be available only to
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 9 of 20
such recipient of the said Gallantry Award who has been awarded for
Gallantry and not to such awardee who, though has been awarded the same
medal, but for distinguished service and not for gallantry. The said Note
unequivocally conveys, that the decision, whether an award qualifies as a
gallantry award or not for the purpose of the said Clause has not been left to
any other person or authority, but is of the person / authority / University
which is to grant such reservation / concession. The Note thus, reinforces
my opinion that the petitioner / her father could not have understood the said
Clause as applicable to them.
10. Neither has the counsel for petitioner pointed out nor have I been able
to find the words "Gallantry Awards" to be of any definite connotation, for
it to be said that the use of the said words is enough to convey as to which
all awards are included or have to be necessarily included therein. The word
„Gallantry‟ means, either „courageous behaviour, especially in battle" or
"Polite attention or respect given by men to women". The context in which
the words "Gallantry Awards" is used in the Clause aforesaid leaves no
manner of doubt that the awards referred to therein are in relation to the
former and not latter of the two meanings of "Gallantry". What will qualify
as "courageous behaviour" and / or as "battle", again is / or can be a matter
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 10 of 20
of subjective opinion and I am unable to find any objective test prescribed
thereof also, neither in any statute or in any rules and regulations. In the
absence of any definite connotation or measure of what act will and what
will not qualify as gallant, and resultantly whether a particular award will be
considered as an award for gallantry or not necessarily has to be of the
authority / body which has made the rule conferring a benefit on recipients
of gallantry award and once that authority / body has specified the awards,
the question of application of principle of ejusdem generis does not arise.
Of course, certain statutes / rules / regulation viz., the Rajasthan Gallantry
Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grant) Rules, 1966 are found to define
„Gallantry Award‟ but the definition therein also is for the purpose of those
Rules only and exhaustive i.e. the awards, which for the purposes of the said
Rules are to be understood as Gallantry Awards have been described. Only
where the word „Gallantry‟ or the expression „Gallantry Award‟ is used
without specifying the awards intended to qualify as gallantry award have
the Courts ventured into interpreting the meaning of gallantry. Reference in
this regard can be made to Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ex.) Rajender Parsad
Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/9603/2006 where a Division Bench of this
Court interpreted the expression "exceptional gallantry and devotion to
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 11 of 20
duty" as meaning that performance which is extraordinary and not merely
average, good or even very good and to recent judgment of the High Court
of Bombay in V.M. Karve Vs. State of Maharashtra
MANU/MH/0900/2015 where the Division Bench of that Court expressed
displeasure at the Government Resolution though using the expression
"Awards for gallantry in the India-Pakistan conflict of 1971" but not
prescribing the awards and proceeded to consider whether a particular award
qualified as Gallantry Award in the said conflict. Interestingly, to the same
effect is a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ali Azhar
Khan Baloch Vs. Province of Sindh LEX/SCPK/0002/2015 where also in
the absence of the definition of gallantry in the statute, the Supreme Court
proceeded on the basis of the dictionary meaning of gallantry.
11. There is another impediment in believing the claim of the petitioner of
having considered herself as eligible under the aforesaid Clause. The
aforesaid Clause is under the Head of "Reservation for Defence Category";
the same provides for reservation of 5% of the total seats in the respondent
University, for children belonging to "Defence Category", in the priority
mentioned thereunder. The use, in Priorities I to IV, is again of the words
"Defence Personnel" or "Ex-servicemen" or "Para-Military Personnel" and
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 12 of 20
the words "Police Personnel" as found in Priority V (supra) are
conspicuously absent therefrom. In the subsequent Priorities VI and VII
also, there is no mention of "Police Personnel". I have wondered whether
reservation for "Defence Personnel" would include "Police Personnel". At
least in the ordinary parlance, it does not. Defence Forces are not
understood as including the Police and Police Force is not understood as
including the Defence Forces. Ordinarily, Defence Forces conveys Army /
Military, Navy and Air Force only. The counsel for the petitioner has not
shown that "Defence Personnel" would include "Police Personnel". While
"Defence Personnel" are understood as those guarding the country against
threats from outside the country, the "Police Personnel" are understood as
responsible for the internal policing and for maintenance of law and order in
the country. The two are under the control of different ministries viz. the
Defence Ministry of the Union and either the Home Ministry in the case of
Union Territories or the State Governments in the case of the States of the
country. In this regard, it may be noticed that though the Police Personnel
may also carry arms but the expression "Armed Forces" also, is understood
as connoting Army, Navy and Air Force only and not the Police Force.
Reliance in this regard may be placed on Akhilesh Prasad Vs. Union
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 13 of 20
Territory of Mizoram (1981) 2 SCC 150 and Sukhdev Singh Gill Vs. State
of Punjab (2000) 8 SCC 492.
12. The same also in my view, could not have led the petitioner into
believing that she was eligible for the benefit of the said Clause.
13. I have made all the aforesaid observations in the context of the
petitioner having not challenged the aforesaid Clause and rather having
proceeded with the admission thereunder. Only when she failed to make the
mark, has she come up with this petition. Though a ground of discrimination
is raised but neither has any case therefor made out nor have the necessary
parties in whose presence such a challenge could have been made been
impleaded. The said clause, as admitted by the petitioner also, has been
inserted in the brochure of the respondent University in accordance with the
recommendation of the Ministry of Defence. Without the Union of India
through the Ministry of Defence being impleaded as a party to the petition
and which has not been done, no challenge to the Clause can be entertained.
Else, the position in law is clear that a candidate who has participated in the
admission process without challenging the Rules and Regulations of
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 14 of 20
admission, cannot, upon remaining unsuccessful, be permitted to challenge
the same.
14. Rather the fact that the aforesaid reservation is on the
recommendation of Ministry of Defence itself excludes the applicability
thereof to police personnel.
15. The counsel for the respondent University is correct in contending that
the question is no longer res integra and is fully covered by the Hridaya
Bhushan (supra). The claim therein also was for admission under Priority
V on the basis of two Police Medals for gallantry awarded by the President
of India. While negativing the claim, it was held that a University is an
autonomous body, entitled to take its own decision in such matters for the
purpose of giving reservation / preference in admission and any
recommendations of the Government would not bind the University which
can take its own view in the matter. It was further held that no material had
been placed to show that the President‟s Police Medal for Gallantry and
Police Medal for Gallantry awarded by the Ministry of Home Affairs are
equal in all respects to the awards mentioned in Priority V. It was yet
further held that the petitioner having not challenged the Clause earlier and
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 15 of 20
having challenged the same only after being denied the benefit thereof could
not maintain the petition.
16. The matter, in my opinion, is placed beyond any pale of controversy
by the dicta of the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration Vs.
Manpreet Singh (1992) 1 SCC 380, also concerned with reservation in
college admissions in favour of wards / spouses of Military / Para-Military
personnel. The first priority while making such reservation was for wards /
spouses of defence personnel who were awardees of Gallantry Decorations
of Paramvir / Mahavir / Vir Chakra. The question for consideration before
the Court was whether the said reservation applied also to wards of defence
personnel who had been awarded Shaurya Chakra and whether the same was
to be treated as equivalent to Vir Chakra. The Supreme Court, after
noticing the "Order of Precedence of Awards" under Regulation 717 of
Defence Services Regulations held that the Rule framed by Chandigarh
Administration and as published by the college in its prospectus having
provided reservation only for children and spouses of those defence
personnel who were awardees of Gallantry Decorations of Paramvir /
Mahavir / Vir Chakra, it was not open to the High Court to also include the
Shaurya Chakra therein. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 16 of 20
therein also had not questioned the Rule and held that even if the High Court
was satisfied that the Rule was discriminatory and bad for the reason of not
including Shaurya Chakra and other gallantry awards, the only course open
to the High Court was to strike the offending Rule and to direct the
authorities to re-frame the Rule; however the Court could not have directed
inclusion of Shaurya Chakra also therein. It was held that if the Rule had
been struck down and re-framed to include other gallantry awards also,
others who may be eligible thereunder and who had earlier not applied
considering the Rule not applicable to them, would have also competed.
17. All that has been held by the Supreme Court in the Chandigarh
Administration (supra) applies equally to the present situation also.
18. I may also mention that I had in Sukhanshu Singh Vs. Delhi
Technological University 2010 SCC Online Delhi 3592 held that the
respondent University, could not have on its own restricted the reservation
under the defence category till Priority V only, as had been done then, and
was bound by the entire recommendation of the Rajya Sainik Board under
the Ministry of Defence and directed the petitioner therein to be admitted.
However the said judgment was set aside by the Division Bench of this
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 17 of 20
Court in LPA No.786/2010 titled Delhi Technological University Vs.
Sukhanshu Singh decided on 12th November, 2010. The Division Bench
held that the respondent University was within its right to exclude Priority
VI and Priority VII and no direction to the respondent University to abide
fully by the recommendation of the Rajya Sainik Board could be issued.
Though another Division Bench in Shivam Shresthi Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/4959/2012 expressed doubts as to the correctness of the view
taken by the Division Bench in Sukhanshu Singh (supra) and referred the
matter to a Full Bench but before the Full Bench the said petition was
withdrawn on 11th September, 2012.
19. Thus as of today, the view of the Division Bench in Sukhanshu
Singh (supra) holds the field and as per which the respondent University
being an autonomous body is fully entitled to confine the reservation to a
certain category of the recommendees only.
20. The respondent University in the present case having chosen to
confine the reservation under Priority V only to the Gallantry Awards
mentioned therein, no error can be found with their decision which requires
interference under the writ jurisdiction.
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 18 of 20
21. As far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the Certificate dated
11th June, 2015 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India and on the acceptance by the University of Delhi of the proposal of the
Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Division) in their letter dated 21 st July,
2009 to the University of Delhi is concerned, the same in the light of the
respondent University being an autonomous body would be of no avail. If
the petitioner felt that the respondent University also should make the same
changes as effected by the University of Delhi, it ought to have got pursued
the matter with the respondent University also and which she did not do.
22. The mystery however still remains as to the purport of the words
"police personnel" in Priority V under the aforesaid Clause. Inspite of my
best endeavour, I have been unable to harmonize / reconcile the said words
with the purport otherwise of the Clause of providing for reservation for
defence personnel and their wards and spouses. In this regard, it may be
mentioned that as per the information available on the official website of the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Police has its own Gallantry Awards, distinct
from the Gallantry Awards of the Armed Forces. Though Priority V of the
aforesaid Clause uses the words "‟Police Personnel" but fails to mention
therein any Gallantry Awards of the police personnel. The only inference
W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 19 of 20
can be that the inclusion of the words "Police Personnel" in Priority V of the
aforesaid Clause is a result of un-skillfulness of the draftsman and this Court
has no option but to reject the said words. The Supreme Court in Union of
India Vs. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273 has reiterated that where the
intention of the legislature is found to be clear but the un-skillfulness of the
draftsman in introducing certain words in the statute results in apparent
ineffectiveness of the language, it is permissible for the Court to reject the
surplus words so as to make the statute effective.
23. The petition thus fails and is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 23, 2015 „gsr‟ W.P.(C) No.6671/2015 Page 20 of 20