Delhi High Court Dismissed the petition seeking to quash government order giving the categories of Priority within the reservations provided in the Army quota of 5% for admission to various Colleges.

Title: Viney Chaudhary vs UOI & Secretary of Higher Education

Reserved: 25.05.23

Pronounced: 03.07.23

W.P.(C) 3285/2023 & CM APPL. 12796/2023




Delhi High Court Dismissed the petition seeking to quash government order giving the categories of Priority within the reservations provided in the Army quota of 5% for admission to various Colleges, and directs the government to treat Priority No. VIII above the Priority No. VI or in alternative to consider both the Priority Nos. VI and VIII at the same podium for the admissions in the forthcoming Academic Year 2023-24.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s wife is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army and is stationed in New Delhi at the moment. The petitioner’s son, Master Divyansh Chaudhary, a Class XII student at Delhi Public School in R.K. Puram, is interested in pursuing a Bachelor of Technology (hereinafter referred to as “B.Tech” Course), for which the Joint Entrance Examination (Main) (JEE) serves as the qualifying examination. The said examination was scheduled to be held from April 6 to April 12, 2023.

The respondent No. 1 created nine categories with corresponding Priorities in its Order dated May 21, 2018, and eligible candidates under each category would be entitled to admission based on their respective Priority regardless of their ranks or mark totals.

The son of the petitioner discovered that the majority of reservation benefits are only being taken away by Priority-VI, leaving no seat available for the remaining Priorities, especially Priority-VIII, in order to obtain admission to various professional courses, after reviewing the cutoff charts of various engineering colleges run by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “GNCTD”).

Thus, the petitioner has contested the Letter/Order of May 21, 2018, claiming that the distinction between Priority VI and Priority VIII violates his fundamental legal rights and deprives him of his right to equality.

Analysis and Decision of the court

In the present petition the petitioner has challenged only the list of priorities for reservation issued by the government and defence ministry for the wards of defence personnel to various medical/professional/non-professional courses. It is important to note that the petitioner has not contested the 5% reservation given to dependents of members of the armed forces, but rather feels wronged by the revised list of priorities placement of dependents of serving personnel in Priority VIII while those of ex-servicemen in Priority VI. The petitioner claims that there is no discernible distinction to put the children of serving soldiers in a group lower.

The court also highlighted that Priority VIII and Priority VI should be combined since the division of the priority between military members and ex-servicemen’s wards is not based on any discernible differences.

In the case of Union of India v. M. Selvakumar (2017) 3 SCC 504, the Apex Court ruled that horizontal reservations in the context of governmental policy are outside the purview of the courts and that they are not the appropriate forum to consider whether a given public policy is sensible and acceptable or whether a better one can be developed. However, the Courts are not prohibited from intervening in those situations when a policy choice might be criticised on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, or unfairness. The Supreme Court shared a similar opinion in its rulings in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mala Banerjee (2015) 7 SCC 698 and Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration (2001) 3 SCC 635.

The advantage of reservations for wards of ex-servicemen had not, in this instance, been denied to the children of current soldiers. The Government of India’s Ministry of Defence has made a policy directive defining how children of Army officers may use their reservations in certain categories. The classification of the wards in Priority VI and Priority VIII does not involve any arbitrary decision-making, irrational behaviour, or intentional wrongdoing.

The case of The Chief Secretary vs. D. Kuralarasan MANU/TN/6162/2021, in which the children of serving personnel were totally omitted from the admissions advertisement, illustrates instances in which a policy choice may be interfered with by the court. The Court intervened to request that they be included to the Priority list for admission to the professional course after it was noted that the exclusion of the wards of the serving personnel without any basis or justification was inappropriate in that situation.

The petitioner questions why the wards of serving personnel should be placed in the last but one category, Priority VIII, while the wards of ex-servicemen receive priority VI, when wards and wives of ex-servicemen as well as serving personnel who are receiving Gallantry Awards, can be placed together in one category, be it Priority V or Priority VII.

The respondent No. 1 in the counter affidavit has explained that although the Government of India had initially decided to grant the benefit to the wives and wards of former service members or recipients of the Gallantry Award, it was ultimately discovered that some positions remained unfilled even after the benefit had been granted to the wards of all the categories. The inclusion of the category of wards of serving people as Priority VIII is solely intended to guarantee that the advantage of reservation is completely utilised, exhausted, and not left unutilized.

The Government Order F.No.6(1)/2017/D (Res.II) dated 21.05.2018 mostly governs how the reserve quota is utilised horizontally. The aforementioned policy hasn’t been accused of being arbitrary or malicious. We don’t see any reason to challenge the Government Order from May 21, 2018, or to rearrange the Priority categories as specified therein.

Thus, the High court dismissed the petition along with pending applications.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to review the Judgement




The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 24 May 2023. In the case of ATHARVA MILIND DESAI Vs JOINT ADMISSION BOARD IIT THR. CHAIRPERSON IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6239 OF 2023 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE the court had to decide on a petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner sought directions to the sole respondent to accept their examination form and fees for the JEE Advance examination. The petitioner claimed that due to network connectivity glitches, they were unable to fill the examination form within the stipulated time frame. The court carefully examined the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant documents before reaching a decision. This blog post aims to analyse the judgment and its implications.


The petitioner had qualified the HSC examination in 2022 and was preparing to appear for the JEE Advance examination. However, they encountered network connectivity issues that prevented them from submitting the examination form within the prescribed time frame. The petitioner argued that since they were eligible to appear for the exam based on their previous qualification, they should be allowed to participate, considering their strong percentile score. They also mentioned residing in a rural area with frequent internet and power outages, which further hindered their registration process.

The respondent, the organizing institute for the JEE Advanced Examination, contended that the examination process was strictly governed by an information brochure. According to the brochure, candidates had to register online within a specified time frame. The respondent presented evidence that the petitioner did not log in during the designated period but only successfully logged in on the day after the registration deadline. The respondent argued that making an exception for the petitioner would set a bad precedent and undermine the sanctity of timelines and the merit selection process.


The court carefully considered the arguments put forth by both parties and examined the relevant documents, including the petitioner’s login details and the information brochure. It acknowledged the significance of technical institutes like IITs and NITs and the importance of discipline in the education system. The court noted that the registration period provided by the respondent was eight full days, which should have been sufficient for all candidates to complete their registration. It also observed that the petitioner successfully logged in on the day after the deadline, without any explanation for the delay.

The court emphasized that the petitioner had not utilized the grievance redressal mechanism outlined in the information brochure during the registration period. Furthermore, the petitioner’s failure to contact the respondent’s designated channels for grievance or query resolution indicated a lack of diligence on their part. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the rules governing the JEE Advanced Examination were binding on all participants, including the petitioner.


The court referenced the Supreme Court case of Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, which highlighted the principle that a court cannot direct an authority to violate its own rules and regulations. The court also mentioned the Delhi High Court case of Pallavi Sharma v. College of Vocational Studies 2015 SCC Online Del 10249, which followed the aforementioned principle.


After careful deliberation, the court dismissed the petition, stating that it was not a fit case to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that maintaining discipline and adhering to the rules and regulations were crucial in the interest of lakhs of aspiring meritorious students across the country. It stressed that its direction should not result in authorities violating their own rules.


This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to rules and regulations in educational processes such as examination registrations. The court’s decision underscores the need for candidates to exercise due diligence and utilize the available mechanisms for grievance resolution within the specified time frames. While sympathizing with the petitioner’s circumstances, the court prioritized the larger interest of maintaining discipline and fairness in the selection process for technical institutes. This judgment sets a precedent for upholding the sanctity of timelines and rules in similar cases, ensuring a fair and transparent examination system.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”



click here to view judgement