In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has held that great-grandchildren of freedom fighters are not entitled to reservation benefits under the category of “dependents of freedom fighters” as defined by the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters, and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993. The judgment was delivered by Justice Alok Mathur in the case titled Avani Pandey vs. Directorate General of Medical Education and Training, Lucknow & Another (Writ-C No. 7708 of 2024).
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, Avani Pandey, had approached the High Court seeking the reservation benefit under the “dependent of freedom fighter” category for her admission to the MBBS course through NEET-UG 2024. Avani, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, argued that her great-grandparents were domiciles of Bihar and were recognized as freedom fighters by the competent authority of the State of Bihar. Despite securing 388 marks out of 720 in the NEET-UG examination, she was denied the opportunity to participate in the counselling process due to the rejection of her claim for the said reservation.
Legal Issues Involved:
The court was primarily concerned with two legal issues:
1. Eligibility of Great-Grandchildren for Freedom Fighter Quota: Whether great-grandchildren of freedom fighters are entitled to reservation benefits as “dependents of freedom fighters” under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters, and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993.
2. Domicile and Reservation Benefits: Whether a person domiciled in Uttar Pradesh but whose ancestors were domiciled outside the state could claim the dependent freedom fighter quota.
Arguments by the Parties:
Counsel for the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Singh, argued that the petitioner’s great-grandparents were freedom fighters and that the guidelines excluding dependents from other states were discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the Division Bench judgment in Anmol Deep vs. State of U.P., which allowed descendants of freedom fighters domiciled outside Uttar Pradesh to claim benefits within the state.
The respondents, represented by Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi and the learned standing counsel, contended that the term “dependents” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act did not include great-grandchildren, and hence the petitioner was not entitled to the reservation.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Alok Mathur, after considering the arguments, observed:
“The definition of ‘dependent’ with reference to a freedom fighter under Section 2(b) of the Act is exhaustive and does not include great-grandchildren.”
The court referred to its previous judgment in Krishna Nand Rai vs. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 13427 of 2020), where it was held that great-grandchildren of freedom fighters are not included within the purview of “dependents” as defined in the Act. Justice Mathur noted:
“No amount of explanation can change the ultimate result…being a fait accompli. For the petitioner can by no means negate the admitted fact that being the great-granddaughter of a ‘freedom fighter,’ she is beyond the purview of the definition of ‘dependent of freedom fighter.'”
Consequently, the court held that the petitioner, as a great-granddaughter of freedom fighters, could not be considered a dependent under the Act. The writ petition was dismissed on this ground.
Case Details:
– Title: Avani Pandey vs. Directorate General of Medical Education and Training, Lucknow & Another
– Case No.: WRIT – C No. 7708 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Alok Mathur
