Great Grandchild Not A 'Dependent' Of Freedom Fighters: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a great grandchild is not a 'dependent of freedom fighters' under Section 2 (b) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993.

The Court relied on Krishna Nand Rai Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others where the Allahabad High Court held that a great grandson is not included within the definition of 'dependent of freedom fighters'.

Factual Background

It is the petitioner's case that she is a domicile of Uttar Pradesh while her great grandparents were declared to be freedom fighters by the competent authority of State of Bihar as they were domiciled there.

Petitioner appeared in NEET-(UG)-2024 examination. She approached the High Court seeking reservation of dependent of freedom fighters as she was denied permission to participate in the counselling subject to declaration of NEET result. It was argued that she was being denied the benefit of reservation and was not being allotted a time for counselling.

Petitioner further challenged the guidelines for NEET-(UG)-2024 examination to the extent that they excluded benefits of reservation to dependent of freedom fighter from other State on grounds of being violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that Section 2 (b) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 defined 'dependent of freedom fighters' as son/ daughter and grandson/granddaughter and marital status of such dependent was irrelevant.

Holding the definition to be exhaustive, the Court held that great granddaughter does not fall within the definition of 'dependent of freedom fighters'.

Justice Alok Mathur held that

“In the case, at hand, the petitioner claims to be great granddaughter of dependent of freedom fighter and is similarly circumstanced to the petitioners of the judgment of Krishna Nand Rai (supra) and the ratio of the said judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the petitioner also would not be included in the definition of dependent of freedom fighters and on this ground the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Avani Pandey v. Directorate General Of Medical Education And Training Thru. Director General Lucknow And Another [WRIT - C No. - 7708 of 2024]

Counsel for Petitioner: Ram Anugrah Singh

Counsel for Respondent: Syed Mohammad Haider Rizv

Click Here To Read/Download Order