LPA 340/2024 Page 1 of 21

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Reserved on: 13.02.2026

% Judgment Delivered on: 29.05.2026

+ LPA 340/2024 & CM APPL. 24481/2024

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA

UNIVERSITY …..Appellant

Versus

KUMAR SAURABH & ORS .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Appellant: Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate

For the Respondent: Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Ms. Mridula

Ray Bharadwaj, Dr Vedant

Bharadwaj & Ms. Pooja Gupta,

Advocates for R-1&2.

Mr. Vikrant Nitesh Goyal, Mr. Yash

Basoya, Mr. Rakshit Tyagi & Mr.

Kunal Dixit, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1.The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment dated 18.03.2024 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed in W.P.(C)

No. 12757/2023 (“Writ Petition”) titled as ‘Kumar Saurabh & Anr. v.

Union of India & Ors.’ which was allowed.

LPA 340/2024 Page 2 of 21

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.The Appellant University was constituted under the Guru Gobind

Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1998, enacted by the Legislative

Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and commenced

functioning in the year 2007.

3.Respondent No. 3, the Ministry of Defence (“MoD”), issued Circular

dated 30.11.2017 bearing F. No. 6(1)/2017/D(Res.II) (“Circular”), laying

down theinter sepriority for reservation in favour of wards of Armed

Forces personnel by States and Union Territories for admission to medical,

professional, and non-professional courses.

4.During the period 2021-2022, instructions were issued by the

Kendriya Sainik Board in respect of the applicants seeking reserved Defence

seats in medical and dental colleges as Government of India nominees under

the MoD quota. The Joint Entrance Examination (Main), 2022 was

conducted on 08.08.2022.

5.Respondent No. 1, Mr. Kumar Saurabh, and Respondent No. 2, Ms.

Kumari Subhargi Priya, are the siblings of Mr. Kumar Shubham, a sailor in

the Indian Navy, who died in harness on 16.09.2022 (“Deceased”).

6.In the year 2023, the Appellant issued its Admission Brochure for the

Academic Session 2023-2024, setting out the reservation policy applicable

to the wards of Defence personnel.

7.The Naval Pension Office, Mumbai (“Pension Office”),videletter

bearing No. NAVPEN/GB/IOFDRC/257519Y dated 10.02.2023, clarified

the names of the family members of the Deceased available on record and

LPA 340/2024 Page 3 of 21

further stated that the expression ‘Dependent’ would apply only to his next

of kin.

8.The Rajya Sainik Board / Zila Sainik Board (“Board”) issued a

Dependent Identity Card of Ex-Servicemen in the name of Respondent No. 1,

recognising him as a ‘Dependent’ of the Deceased. Thereafter, on 13.04.2023,

the Kendriya Sainik Board issued directions amending the guidelines

governing the issuance of identity cards to dependents of ex-servicemen.

9.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared in NEET UG 2023, conducted on

07.05.2023. On the basis of their respective ranks, they were allocated to the

Appellant for admission, pursuant to which they uploaded their profiles on the

Appellant’s website. At that stage, the requisite documents, including the

Relationship Certificates issued by the Pension Office, were also uploaded on

the said portal.

10.The Pension Office issued a Relationship Certificate bearing No.

IOFDRC/1355(B) dated 22.05.2023 (“Relationship Certificate”) on the

request of Mr. Baidya Nath Singh, father of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The

Relationship Certificate recommended Priority-III for the purpose of

reservation in favour of the wards of Armed Forces personnel. On the same

date, the Board issued Dependent Identity Cards of Ex-Servicemen in the

names of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, recognising them as dependents of the

Deceased.

11.The Office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions)

issued a Pension Payment Order dated 09.06.2023 in favour of Mrs. Neeraj

Singh, the mother of the Deceased, recognising her as the sole ‘Dependent’

of the Deceased.

LPA 340/2024 Page 4 of 21

12.On 30.06.2023, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 generated their candidate

profiles on the portal of the Appellant for admission to the MBBS course.

Thereafter, a Provisional Seat Allotment Letter dated 07.08.2023 was issued

by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation Medical College, Hindu Rao

Hospital (“NDMC College”) in their favour. Subsequently, Dr. Baba Saheb

Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital (“College”),videe-mail dated

25.08.2023, sought clarification from the Board as to whether Respondent

No. 1 was eligible for the Defence quota.

13.The Pension Office thereafter issued a Dependency Certificate dated

31.08.2023 (“Dependency Certificate”), recording that the Deceased had

two younger siblings, namely Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and further stating

that, being the sole earning member, his family had been dependent upon

him during his service tenure.

14.Upon receipt of a complaint in the grievance cell, an inquiry was

addressed to the Board seeking clarification as to whether Respondent Nos.

1 and 2 were eligible for reservation. The Board,videe-mail dated

13.09.2023 addressed to the College, clarified that Respondent No. 1 was

not eligible for the Defence quota under the existing Naval Policy. Pursuant

thereto, the College issued a communication dated 14.09.2023 to the

Appellant stating that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were found ineligible for

admission to the MBBS course under the Defence quota. Consequently, the

Admission-in-Charge of the Appellant issued a Notice of Cancellation of

Admission dated 19.09.2023 (“Cancellation Notice”) in respect of

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in view of the aforesaid communication dated

13.09.2023.

LPA 340/2024 Page 5 of 21

15.Respondent No. 1 issued a Legal Notice dated 20.09.2023 to the

College, the Board, and the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant,videe-mail

dated 21.09.2023 addressed to the Dean, NDMC College, communicated the

cancellation of the Admission Letter issued to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Aggrieved thereby, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 instituted the Writ Petition

seeking quashing of the Notice dated 19.09.2023 and maintenance ofstatus

quoin relation to their admission / seats. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not

challenge the decision of the Board regarding cancellation of their

dependent status and the identity cards issued in their favour.

16.Videthe Impugned Judgment, this Court allowed the Writ Petition,

holding that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to relief, and set aside

the cancellation of their admission effected by the Appellantvideletter dated

19.09.2023. The learned Single Judge further directed that Respondent Nos.

1 and 2 shall not be restrained from appearing in their examinations on the

ground of shortage of attendance during the pendency of the Writ Petition.

17.Being aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant has

preferred the present Appeal.

18.Videorder dated 29.04.2024 passed in the present Appeal, the Notice

was issued and till further orders, Impugned Judgement was directed to be

stayed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter preferred Special Leave Petition

(Civil) No. 12549/2024 before the Supreme Court challenging the order

dated 29.04.2024 passed in the present Appeal, which was dismissedvide

order dated 04.06.2024.

LPA 340/2024 Page 6 of 21

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

19.Ms. Anita Sahani, the learned Counsel for the Appellant made the

following submissions:

19.1.The learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the

Relationship Certificate, which expressly records that it was

issued at the request of the individual concerned and ought not to

be treated as a dependency certificate. The question of

dependency, it is stated, is liable to be verified and ascertained in

accordance with the applicable policy framework.

19.2.The learned Single Judge further failed to appreciate that the

admission brochure / prospectus issued by the Appellant

specifically clarifies, by way of a note, that the children or widow

of officers and personnel of the Armed Forces who died or were

disabled while on duty are required to submit a certificate to that

effect. The said provision of the prospectus has not been accorded

due consideration. The relevant extract of the prospectus is

reproduced hereinbelow:

“2. For admission to a seat reserved for Defence Category:

i.Entitlement card in original issued by the Record

officer of the Unit Regiment of Armed Personnel of the

Armed Forces in case of Armed Personnel.

ii.The children / widow of the officers and men of Armed

Forces who died or were disable on duty must submit a

certificate to that effect from the following authorities.

i.Secretary, Kendriya Sainik Board

ii.Secretary, Rajya / Zila Sainik Board.

iii.Office -in - charge, record office.”

LPA 340/2024 Page 7 of 21

19.3.The learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the e-

mail dated 13.09.2023 issued by the Secretary of the Board, which

categorically stated that Respondent No. 1, being the brother of

the Deceased, was not eligible for admission to the College as a

ward of Defence personnel. It was further stated by the Board that

the Relationship Certificates had been issued inadvertently and

that the benefit in question was not available to Respondent Nos. 1

and 2. It was for this reason, namely, that the very certificate /

document on the basis of which admission had been granted stood

withdrawn by the Board, that the admission of Respondent Nos. 1

and 2 came to be cancelled.

19.4.The Dependent Identity Cards and the Relationship Certificates

issued by the Board formed the basis on which admission was

granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No objection could have been

raised by the Appellant at the stage of admission, and that the

issue arose only after a complaint was received in the Grievance

Cell and a query was thereafter addressed to the Board. It was

only upon the Board informing the College that Respondent Nos.

1 and 2 were not eligible for reservation that the Appellant

proceeded to question their admission.

19.5.The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that, irrespective of

any certificate of dependency, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not

legally recognised as ‘Dependents’ and could not be treated as

wards of the Deceased. The term ‘Dependent’ is defined to

include the wife / spouse, father, mother, an unmarried or

LPA 340/2024 Page 8 of 21

unemployed son up to the age of 25 years, and an unmarried,

unemployed, widowed, or divorced daughter irrespective of age.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the siblings of the Deceased,

would accordingly not fall within the ambit of ‘Dependent’ as set

out in the letter dated 10.02.2023 issued by the Pension Office.

19.6.The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the Board,

videletter dated 13.09.2023, had expressly communicated the

ineligibility of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. A holistic reading of the

relevant clauses of the admission brochure / prospectus, the

Circular issued by the MoD, and the undertaking required to be

furnished at the time of counselling for admission under the

Defence Personnel quota, makes it clear that the opinion of the

Board governs the entitlement of candidates to such admission.

This aspect was not duly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

19.7.The learned Single Judge further failed to appreciate that only a

Provisional Seat Allotment Letter dated 07.08.2023 had been

issued by the NDMC College in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and

2. Thereafter, the candidature of Respondent No. 1 was found to

be ineligible for admission to the MBBS course under the Defence

quota in the College. Accordingly,videthe Cancellation Notice,

the Appellant informed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that their

admission stood cancelled.

19.8.The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the present case

is squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in

LPA 340/2024 Page 9 of 21

Dr. Megha Sugandh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Neutral

Citation: 2023:DHC:2366, wherein it was held that once the

Economically Weaker Section (“EWS”) Certificate obtained by

the petitioner therein had been cancelled, the continuation of her

admission could not be sustained, notwithstanding that she had

already pursued one year of the Post Graduate Ayurveda course,

since the very basis on which the EWS claim rested had ceased to

exist.

19.9.The learned Single Judge erroneously relied upon the decisions in

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1

SCC 405;A. Sudha v. University of Mysore, (1987) 4 SCC 537;

andRajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, 1986

Supp. SCC 740, while rendering the Impugned Judgment.

19.10.Accordingly, it is submitted that the present Appeal deserves to be

allowed and the Impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2

20.Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1

and 2 made the following submissions:

20.1.Based on the Circular, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 applied for

admission under Defence Category Priority-III. At every stage,

including during physical counselling, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

expressly disclosed that they were the brother and sister of the

Deceased and duly apprised the Appellant of the said relationship.

LPA 340/2024 Page 10 of 21

20.2.The seats allotted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were granted after

due scrutiny, and admission letters were accordingly issued in

their favour. It was only thereafter that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

deposited the requisite fees, upon which fee receipts were issued

by NDMC College.

20.3.The requisite documents were duly verified in the course of the

admission process and were found to satisfy the requirements

stipulated by the Admission-in-Charge of the Appellant.

20.4.Following the confirmation of their admission, Respondent Nos. 1

and 2 regularly attended classes at their respective allotted

colleges. Thereafter, the Appellant issued the Cancellation Notice,

whereby the admissions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came to be

cancelled.

20.5.The Appellant’s decision to cancel the admissions of Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 solely based on an unsubstantiated communication

from the Board, without any further inquiry and without

disclosing a legal basis therefor, is arbitrary and unsupported by

cogent material. The principles of natural justice require that

decisions affecting an individual’s rights and educational

opportunities be founded on clear material and taken in

accordance with established law and procedure.

20.6.The cancellation of admission was effected in flagrant violation of

the principles of natural justice. An admission granted to a

student, even if described as provisional, cannot be cancelled once

LPA 340/2024 Page 11 of 21

it has been granted after scrutiny and verification of all documents

submitted by the candidate and upon satisfaction of the competent

authority that such documents established the candidate’s

entitlement to admission.

20.7.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the unmarried sister and

unmarried brother of a battle casualty, are entitled to be treated as

wards of the Deceased unmarried soldier in terms of the Haryana

Government, Human Resources Department, Compassionate

Appointment Policy, 2023 dated 14.08.2023 (“Compassionate

Appointment Policy”) and the Indian Army Recruitment

Advertisement dated 06.09.2017.

20.8.The Compassionate Appointment Policy provides that an eligible

family member includes either the brother, whether married or

unmarried, or an unmarried sister of an unmarried battle casualty,

subject to the consent of the parents and the other unmarried

sisters and brothers.

20.9.The advertisement issued by Madras Engr GP and Centre,

Bangalore on 06.09.2017 for enrolment under the category of

wards of battle casualties specifically includes “one real brother

of an unmarried Battle Casualty” under Priority-I, and provides

for instant enrolment of “one real brother of a battle casualty,

where the deceased was unmarried or did not have a male child”.

20.10.The MoD, Department of Military Affairs Notification dated

29.12.2022 regardingAgniveersdefined the word “family” as “(i)

LPA 340/2024 Page 12 of 21

in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives, parents,

children, minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased son’s

widow and children and where no parents of the subscriber is

alive, a paternal grandparent…”.

20.11.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied upon the following decisions

while making the above submissions:

i.Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur & Ors.,

1989 AIR 823

ii.Rajendra Prasad Mathur Etc. v. Karnataka University &

Anr., 1986 AIR 1448

iii.Sangeeta Shrivastava v. U. N. Singh and Ors., AIR 1980

Delhi 27

iv.Javed Akhtar and Another v. Jamia Hamdard & Another,

Neutral Citation: 2006:DHC:6059

v.Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College & Ors., Neutral

Citation: 2006:DHC:3786

vi.Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee & Ors., 2005 (9) SCC

779

20.12.Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment ought to be upheld, and the

present Appeal shall be dismissed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3

21.Mr. Vikrant Nitesh Goyal, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3

made the following submissions:

21.1.The Deceased, Ex-EM(R) I, died in harness on 16.09.2022

onboard INS Car Nicobar due to an electric shock sustained

during operational duty. The Deceased was officially categorized

LPA 340/2024 Page 13 of 21

as “Death Attributable to Military Service” (Category C) as per

extant regulations. Post demise, the Deceased’s mother was

granted Special Family Pension.

21.2.Based on the request from the Deceased’s father, the Pension

Office issued Relationship Certificate identifying the brother,

Respondent No. 1 and the sister, Respondent No. 2 of the

Deceased. On the basis of the Relationship Certificate, the Board,

acting upon these documents, issued Eligibility Certificates under

Priority-III, leading to admission of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in

the MBBS course offered by the Appellant.

21.3.The MoD Policy Letter No. 6(1)/2017/D(Res.II) dated 21.05.2018

(“Policy”) clearly outlines Priority-III applicability towards i.e.,

sons / daughters and not to siblings. The Relationship Certificate

issued by the Pension Office mentioned that the Deceased came

under Priority-III. Priority-III is reserved for the wards and the

widows of Defence personnel who died in service and none of the

priorities listed in the Policy provides for any reservation to

brothers / sisters of Armed Forces personnel. The Board therefore,

erred in issuing the Relationship Certificate to Respondent Nos. 1

and 2 classifying them as beneficiaries under Priority-III. The

Relationship Certificate explicitly stated the familial relationship

and contained disclaimers clarifying that the Relationship

Certificate is not a dependency certificate and the dependency

status is subject to verification as per the Policy. Priority-III of the

Policy is reproduced hereunder:

LPA 340/2024 Page 14 of 21

“Priority III : Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who

died while in service with death attributable

to military service.”

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

22.Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the

record with due care, the principal question that falls for consideration is

whether the brother and the sister of a deceased Defence personnel, whose

death in service was attributable to military service, are entitled to claim

reservation under Defence Category Priority-III as “wards” within the

meaning of the MoD Circular and the Admission Brochure issued by the

Appellant for the Academic Session 2023-2024.

23.Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is apposite to set out the

facts that are not in dispute. It stands admitted that the Deceased, Late

Kumar Shubham was a sailor in the Indian Navy who passed away on

16.09.2022 as a result of an electric shock sustained during operational duty,

and that his death was officially categorised as “Death Attributable to

Military Service” under Category C.

24.It is further undisputed that the Deceased was unmarried at the time of

his demise. It is likewise not in dispute that the Pension Payment Order

dated 09.06.2023 issued by the Office of the Principal Controller of Defence

Accounts recognised only the mother of the Deceased, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, as

the sole ‘Dependent’ for the purposes of Special Family Pension. These

admitted facts constitute the factual backdrop against which the present

Appeal falls to be adjudicated.

LPA 340/2024 Page 15 of 21

25.Before recording its conclusions, it is apposite to examine the

decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in

Charu Sharma(supra). In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court

was concerned with a comparable factual situation involving a student who

had secured admission as a ward of a college employee but was

subsequently found to be his cousin and not his daughter. While setting

aside the cancellation of admission, the learned Single Judge specifically

noted that the student had made no misrepresentation in her application and

had expressly disclosed that she was the niece of the employee.

26.The Court further held that, in the absence of any suppression of

material facts, the student could not be penalised for the failure of the

college to properly scrutinise her application at the stage of admission. The

ratio ofCharu Sharma(supra), therefore, lends substantial support to the

case of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who likewise made full and candid

disclosure of their relationship with the Deceased at every stage of the

admission process.

27.Consequently, the admission of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came to be

granted after due scrutiny of all documents placed before the Appellant and

the Board. The undertaking submitted by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the

time of counselling was independently examined and countersigned by Brig.

S.K. Narain on behalf of the Board, who certified, upon verification of the

original documents, that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to admission

under Defence Category Priority-III.

LPA 340/2024 Page 16 of 21

28.It was, therefore, not the Relationship Certificates alone that formed

the basis of the admission and, in fact, the independent certification by the

competent authority at the stage of counselling constituted the operative

foundation on which the admission was granted.

29.The principles of natural justice require that before any adverse action

is taken against an individual, particularly where valuable rights such as

admission to a professional course are implicated, the person affected must

be afforded a fair and meaningful opportunity of hearing. In the present

case, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had been regularly attending classes pursuant

to the admission granted to them after complete scrutiny of their documents.

The Cancellation Notice came to be issued without any prior notice, without

apprising them of the doubts raised regarding their eligibility, and without

affording them any opportunity to place their case before the Appellant.

30.The Appellant proceeded with undue haste solely based on a one-line

informal e-mail dated 13.09.2023 from Brig. S.K. Narain, without first

hearing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the issue of their eligibility.

31.As correctly held by the learned Single Judge, an admission granted to

a student after due scrutiny of documents, even if described as provisional,

cannot be cancelled without first affording the student an opportunity of

hearing. This is among the most elementary requirements of a fair

procedure, and the failure to observe the same in the present case constitutes

a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, which independently

vitiates the cancellation.

LPA 340/2024 Page 17 of 21

32.It is well settled, as laid down by the Supreme Court inMohinder

Singh Gill(supra), that an order passed by a public authority must stand on

its own reasons and must disclose the basis for the decision on the face of

the order itself. An order bereft of reasons and resting solely upon the

informal opinion of another authority, without independent application of

mind, cannot be sustained in law.

33.It is equally well settled, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in

Rajendra Prasad Mathur(supra) and affirmed inA. Sudha(supra), that

once admission has been granted to a student upon consideration of all

relevant documents, and where the student has not suppressed any material

fact, such admission cannot subsequently be cancelled merely by revisiting

the same material and arriving at a different conclusion.

34.In the present case, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 clearly disclosed at

every stage that they were the brother and sister of the Deceased. All

relevant documents were placed before the competent authority at the time

of counselling. The subsequent change of opinion by Brig. S.K. Narain, as

reflected in his e-mail dated 13.09.2023, which stands in complete

contradiction to his own earlier certification, cannot constitute a lawful basis

for cancellation of an admission innocently obtained.

35.It is also of significance that the Dependent Identity Cards issued to

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 continue to remain valid and have not been

cancelled by any formal order. The Appellant cannot be permitted to deny

the benefit flowing from subsisting identity cards while simultaneously

allowing the same to remain operative. The reliance placed by the Appellant

LPA 340/2024 Page 18 of 21

inDr. Megha Sugandh(supra) is misplaced, as that decision arose in a

distinct factual context where the EWS certificate forming the very basis of

admission had been definitively cancelled by a formal order of the

competent authority. In the present case, no such formal cancellation of the

certificates issued to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has taken place. Furthermore,

as correctly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the decision inDr. Megha

Sugandh(supra) did not consider the principles laid down inRajendra

Prasad Mathur(supra) andA. Sudha(supra), which are directly applicable

here and constitute binding precedent of the Supreme Court. The said

decision cannot, therefore, override the clear and authoritative

pronouncements of the Supreme Court squarely attracted to the facts of the

present case.

36.The contention advanced by the Appellant that Clause 6.1.2 of the

Admission Brochure 2023-2024 restricts the meaning of “wards” to children

and widows alone is equally untenable. The said Clause merely prescribes

the nature of the certificate required to be submitted by children and widows

for the purpose of admission to a Defence Category seat. It does not purport

to define the expression “wards” as employed in the priority framework of

the MoD Circular. The expression “wards” remains undefined both in the

MoD Circular dated 30.11.2017 and in the Admission Brochure 2023-2024

of the Appellant. In the absence of a clear and unambiguous definition, a

restrictive construction excluding siblings cannot be imposed.

37.As correctly observed by the learned Single Judge, if this Court in

Charu Sharma(supra) was prepared to extend the meaning of “wards” even

to cousins in appropriate circumstances, there is no justification to exclude

LPA 340/2024 Page 19 of 21

the brother or sister of a deceased unmarried sailor, who was the sole

earning member of his family.

38.This Court finds further support for the aforesaid analysis in other

policy instruments issued by the MoD itself and placed on record by

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Compassionate Appointment Policy

recognises, for the purpose of compassionate appointment, that an eligible

family member includes either the brother, whether married or unmarried, or

an unmarried sister of an unmarried battle casualty, subject to the requisite

consent of the parents and other siblings.

39.Similarly, the Indian Army Recruitment Advertisement issued by

Madras Engr GP and Centre Bangalore dated 06.09.2017 specifically

includes “one real brother of an unmarried Battle Casualty” under Priority-I

for the purpose of enrolment, providing for instant enrolment of one real

brother of a battle casualty where the deceased was unmarried or did not

have a male child. Further, the Notification dated 29.12.2022 issued by the

MoD, Department of Military Affairs, concerningAgniveers, defines the

term “family” to expressly include minor brothers and unmarried sisters of a

male subscriber.

40.Taken cumulatively, the aforesaid instruments issued by or under the

authority of the MoD demonstrate that the broader defence policy

framework of the Government of India has consistently recognised siblings

of an unmarried deceased soldier as forming part of the family unit entitled

to the benefits and protections extended to the wards of Defence personnel.

LPA 340/2024 Page 20 of 21

41.Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that the expression “wards”

in the MoD Circular was never intended to include siblings of a deceased

unmarried sailor cannot be accepted, when other policy instruments of the

MoD expressly recognise and protect such siblings as members of the family

of the deceased.

42.Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned

Counsel for the Parties, we are of the considered view that the Impugned

Judgment correctly appreciates both the factual matrix and the governing

legal principles. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the cancellation

of admission of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stood vitiated by the absence of

reasons, violation of the principles of natural justice, and the failure to apply

the law as settled by the Supreme Court. The reliance placed by the

Appellant on the authorities cited on its behalf is misplaced as those

decisions are distinguishable on distinct factual situations where the grounds

for cancellation stood duly established on credible material, which is wholly

absent in the present case.

43.We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge correctly

concluded that the Appellant had failed to justify the cancellation of

admission of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, particularly in view of the complete

absence of independent reasoning in the Cancellation Notice, the violation

of natural justice, thebona fideof Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and thevolte-

faceof Brig. S.K. Narain, who had himself countersigned their undertaking

at the time of counselling and certified their eligibility under Defence

Category Priority-III, only thereafter to opine, without any formal reasoning

or order, that they were not so entitled.

LPA 340/2024 Page 21 of 21

44.The principles laid down inMohinder Singh Gill(supra),Rajendra

Prasad Mathur(supra),A. Sudha(supra) andCharu Sharma(supra)

apply squarely to the facts of the present case and support the restoration of

the admissions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Impugned Judgment does

not suffer from any legal infirmity, perversity, or error apparent on the face

of the record so as to warrant interference in this Appeal.

45.In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no ground warranting

interference with the Impugned Judgment dated 18.03.2024, which is

accordingly upheld. The present Appeal, along with the pending

Application, is therefore dismissed.

46.As a result, order dated 29.04.2024 passed in the present Appeal

granting stay of the Impugned Judgment till further order stands vacated and

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to continue their studies in the

MBBS course at their respective colleges and to all consequential reliefs

available in law. There shall be no order as to costs.

TEJAS KARIA, J

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

MAY 29, 2026

‘N’