CHAIRMAN, ODISHA JOINT ENTRANCE Vs. RAJASHREE NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid writ appeals have been filed by the Chairman, Orissa Joint Entrance Examination Committee and the Rajya Sainik Board respectively, seeking to challenge the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.16218 of 2012, whereby, the learned Single Judge have directed as follows:

(2.) The aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge have been challenged by the Chairman, OJEE on various grounds, inter alia, that the circular of the Ministry of Defence vide D.O. No.3547 AS(R) 94 dated 03.06.1994 providing for classification of priorities and fixing prioritization is distinct and different from the concept of reservation and consequently the learned Single Judge has erroneously placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court reported in the case of Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab and Another, 2002 AIR(SC) 1618 as well as the decision in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1993 AIR(SC) 477 It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment was not in consonance with the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Faiza Choudhary v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, 2013 AIR(SC) 1115. Mr. D.K. Sahoo-1, learned counsel appearing for the Rajya Sainik Board reiterated the arguments advanced on behalf of the Chairman, OJEE.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge submitted that the purported prioritization issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence dated 03.06.1994 cannot be held to be a policy decision of the Government of India since the said communication was issued by the Additional Secretary in the Department of Defence since different States were prescribing different preferences for wards of Defence Personnel. In para-2 of the said circular it has been noted that even though the education is a State subject, for the purpose of standardization of prioritization was recommended. It is therefore contended that the said communication was neither a policy decision nor a directive of the Union of India and at best a recommendation for the purpose of standardization of procedure amongst various States and nothing more.