Benefit of Special Category Reservation granted: Karnataka High Court

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.11576 OF 2020BETWEEN: KUMARI ANJALI .R D O RAVINDRA S.V. AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS RESIDING AT LIG 548 HUDCO COLONY KALLAHALLI 2ND PHASE VINOBANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA 577 024. REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER ie. NATURAL GUARDIAN RAVINDRA S.V. S O VENKATARAMU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT LIG 548 HUDCO COLONY KALLAHALLI 2ND PHASE VINOBANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA 577 024. BY SRI. RAKESH B BHATT ADVOCATE) KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BY SRI.N.K.RAMESH ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.10.2020 ANNEXURE F AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO RECTIFY THE CET APPLICATION FORM AND ALSO CONSIDER PETITIONERS ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL CATEGORY RESERVATION UNDER THE CATEGORY OF EX CAPF. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Petitioner being daughter of an Ex. Border Security Force soldier aspiring for a seat in Engineering course under “Special Category Reservation” is knocking at the doors of writ court seeking a direction to the respondent to permit her to rectify a mistake in describing the category of reservation in her CET Application Form. After service of notice the respondent Karnataka Examination Authority having entered appearance through its Senior Panel Counsel resists the Writ Petition making justification of rejection of petitioner candidature because of the mistake in the description of the reservation category. 3 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: a) petitioner has produced sufficient material including a certificate dated 31.08.2020 which indisputably shows that she is the daughter of Ex.BSF soldier bearing Service No.970090106 who was a combatant member during the period between 01.02.1997 and 31.05.2017 her father thus having defended the frontiers of the nation for a period exceeding twenty years has retired from Unit 84 BN.BSF and therefore petitioner is entitled to the benefit of reservation under the Special Category earmarked for Ex. Defence BSF soldiers b) arguably a small mistake is committed by the petitioner a minor daughter of the BSF soldier in describing the reserved category as ‘Ex.Defence’ in the CET application form however this Court is of a considered opinion that it is not at all a mistake inasmuch as the BSF is apparently a Defence Organisation too having been statutorily constituted under the provisions of the Border Security Force Act 1968 the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder make it abundantly clear that the servicemen of BSF function as the soldiers guarding the borders of the country therefore this aspect of the matter ought to have been adverted to by the respondent before denying a seat to the petitioner under the ‘Special Category’ regardless of the description mentioned by the candidate who is admittedly a minor and c) it hardly needs to be stated that the provisions for special preferential treatment of defence personnel and their children in the matter of education and employment have a great underlying philosophy and therefore they should be construed liberally for effectuating the purpose for which they have been made by the Central State Government too technical an approach would defeat their very purpose in any circumstance before rejecting the applications the officials having a word with the candidate and his her parents would infuse fairness in the action which is an essential element of justice more is not necessary to specify. In the above circumstances this writ petition succeeds a Writ of Mandamus issues directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to avail the benefit of ‘Special Category Reservation’ under Ex.CAPF Ex.Army Ex.soldier as the case may be. Costs made easy. JUDGE Sd 

Summary: In the case of Kumari Anjali R. versus Karnataka Examination Authority [Writ Petition No.- 11576 of 2020(EDN- CET)], the Karnataka high court observed that because of the minor error in describing the reservation category, the candidate who was aspiring for a seat in engineering course cannot be denied a seat in the CET examination. This very writ petition was represented by the applicant’s father under Article 226 &amp; 227 of the constitution of India to consider the petition, allow the applicant to make a correction in the CET application form and to consider the candidate eligible for special category reservation under the category of EX CAPF. Articles 226 and 227 are the parts of the constitution which define the powers of the High Court. Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them. Article 227 determines that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction (except a court formed under a law related to armed forces). The Karnataka Examination Authority dismissed the candidature of the applicant who is the daughter of an Ex. Border Security Force soldier because she made a mistake in the description of the reservation category. The court was of the view that since the petitioner provided sufficient material which included a certificate which proved that she is the daughter of Ex. BSF soldier who defended the frontiers of the nation for a period exceeding twenty years and has retired, therefore she was rightly entitled to enjoy the privilege of the reservation. The court further stated that it was a minor mistake committed by the petitioner in describing the reservation category however the court was of the opinion that it was not a mistake at all as BSF is apparently a defense organization too which was statutorily constituted under the provisions of the Border Security Act of 1968; “the provisions of the Act and the Rule made thereunder make it abundantly clear that the servicemen of BSF function as the soldiers guarding the borders of the country, therefore, this aspect of the matter ought to have been adverted to by the respondent before denying a seat to the petitioner under the ‘Special Category’ regardless of the description mentioned by the candidate, who is admittedly a minor”.