The Supreme Court has recently advised the government to revise the admission norms for Sainik Schools, highlighting instances where archaic regulations have led to the unjust denial of opportunities to deserving candidates. This intervention came during the hearing of two separate cases that brought to light discriminatory practices within these institutions.
In one case, the Supreme Court intervened to ensure the admission of a girl who was initially denied entry to a Sainik School in Uttarakhand due to toe deformities. The court found the rejection to be based on archaic norms, especially considering that not all students who attend Sainik Schools necessarily end up joining the National Defence Academy (NDA). The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, remarked that Army-run institutions seemed to be adhering to outdated regulations, leading to the unfortunate scenario of a meritorious girl being rejected for minor deformities. The court then directed the Sainik School to admit the girl.
In a similar vein, the Supreme Court also addressed the case of an Other Backward Class (OBC) woman who was rejected from a constable position in Uttar Pradesh due to a minor squint. The court directed the UP government to employ the woman, emphasizing the need to revisit discriminatory regulations.
These interventions highlight a broader issue of discriminatory practices within institutions that need to be addressed and rectified. The Supreme Court's observations suggest a need for a comprehensive review and modernization of the admission criteria for Sainik Schools to ensure that they are fair, equitable, and in line with contemporary standards.
Moreover, the Madras High Court has also recently directed Sainik Schools to implement a 10% reservation for candidates from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in their admission process. Justice C. Saravanan ruled that the Central Government's Office Memorandum, which was issued to implement the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, made it mandatory for all Central Educational Institutions, including Sainik Schools, to apply the EWS reservation policy. The court's decision came after a petition was filed by a parent whose son was denied admission despite meeting the qualifying criteria in the All India Sainik Schools Entrance Examination (AISSEE) 2024.
These rulings collectively underscore the judiciary's commitment to ensuring inclusivity and fairness in educational opportunities, particularly for institutions like Sainik Schools that play a crucial role in shaping the future leadership of the nation. The courts have emphasized that procedural requirements should not be used to deny justice or perpetuate injustice. Non-statutory rules for admission cannot be treated at par with Statutory Rules. Some latitude ought to be given to students in case of inadvertent discrepancies. Future prospects of children should be considered in admission decisions.
Sainik Schools were established in 1961 with the aim of preparing young boys academically, physically, and mentally for entry into the NDA. Over time, these schools have become important institutions for training future officers of the Indian Armed Forces. However, it is essential that their admission practices remain relevant and aligned with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. As such, these recent interventions by the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court serve as a crucial reminder for the government and relevant authorities to re-evaluate and revise the existing admission norms to create a more inclusive and equitable environment for all aspiring candidates.
