The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulations of Admissions into Undergraduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007, and the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017. These regulations provide a 1% reservation in medical seats for children of ex-servicemen and serving personnel of the Army, Navy, and Air Force domiciled in Telangana but exclude children of personnel from the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF).
Read also:- Telangana High Court Rules Digital Signature Mandatory for Online Show-Cause Notices Under GST
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara ruled that the classification was based on intelligible differentia and does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The classification is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. There is a clear object sought to be achieved in reserving 1% of seats for children of Armed Forces personnel, namely, the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The basis of classification has a nexus with the object of the classification.
The petitioners, who are children of a Border Security Force (BSF) personnel, appeared for NEET 2024 and sought admission under the special reservation category. They challenged the provisions that excluded CAPF personnel from the 1% reservation, arguing that forces like BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP, and SSB are also part of the CAPF as per an Official Memorandum dated March 18, 2011.
Their argument was that since the BSF Act, 1968, recognizes BSF as an Armed Force of the Union, its personnel should be treated at par with the Army, Navy, and Air Force in matters of reservation. The petitioners contended that excluding CAPF personnel’s children amounts to discrimination under Article 14.
Read Also:- Telangana High Court Revokes Late-Night Movie Entry Ban for Children, Calls for Stakeholder Consultation
"The Border Security Force Act, 1968, provides for the constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for ensuring border security. Section 4 of the BSF Act clearly states the formation of an Armed Force, thus BSF should be considered as part of the Armed Forces."
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The High Court examined the legal principle of reasonable classification, emphasizing that two conditions must be met:
- There must be an intelligible differentia distinguishing those included from those excluded.
- The classification must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Citing landmark cases like State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the bench held that the classification in this case is justified as Armed Forces personnel and CAPF personnel operate under different service conditions and laws.
"Personnel engaged by the Army, Navy, and Air Force are governed by distinct Acts and Rules. Their tenure and service conditions differ from those of CAPF personnel, making it reasonable to classify them separately."
The court noted that CAPF personnel serve until the age of 60, whereas Armed Forces personnel retire at a younger age, often between 35-40 years. The nature of re-employment opportunities for the two groups also differs significantly. Thus, the court found that reserving seats for Armed Forces personnel’s children does not infringe upon equality principles.
Prior Government Assurances and Judicial Precedents
The petitioners referred to a previous assurance given by the Telangana government in W.P. No. 41918 of 2022, where it had agreed to consider BSF personnel’s children under the reservation category. However, the court held that an administrative assurance cannot override statutory rules. Similarly, an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling in Tummala Supriya v. National Medical Commission was deemed irrelevant as it was based on government concessions rather than a constitutional principle.
The bench also referred to a Ministry of Defence order dated February 25, 2025, which reinforced that
"reservation benefits under the Defence quota should be exclusively for the wards of Armed Forces personnel, and any extension to CAPF personnel should be under a separate category."
The Telangana High Court ruled that the exclusion of CAPF personnel’s children from the 1% medical reservation is legally justified. The petition was dismissed, and the interim stay was vacated.
Case Title: Vangala Vishnu Priya and others vs. The State of Telangana & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION Nos. 26246 and 27045 of 2024
