The definition of "ward of a freedom fighter" in the prospectus for admission to professional courses in Himachal Pradesh, which limited the benefit of reservation to children and grandchildren (only from the paternal side) of the freedom fighter, was not discriminatory and did not violate Articles 14, 15, or 16 of the Constitution of India.

D. Raju, C.J.—The above writ petition has been filed seeking for a declaration that the definition of the ward of the Freedom-Fighters as contained in Annexure P-5 be declared unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and while quashing the same direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to the MBBS/BDS course as against the seat reserved for a ward of a freedom-fighter. The petitioner claims to be the son of one Tek Ram Sharma and Smt. Sunita Sharma and the said Sunita Sharma, the mother of the petitioner, is said to be the daughter of Shri Sita Ram a resident of village Dhalaya, PO Jabri, Tehsil and District Shimla who is also said to be a freedom fighter. For the admission to entrance test conducted on behalf of the Himachal Pradesh State Government by the Himachal Pradesh University to the professional course of MBBS/ BDS in different colleges located in Himachal Pradesh State for the academic sessioni998-99, applications were invited and they were required to be submitted to the Deputy Registrar (Entrance-test) Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. The petitioner claimed to fulfil the requisite qualifications. The relevant portion of the prospectus indicated that seats have been reserved for the wards of freedom fighters, one seat each in each of the medical colleges, namely, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, Dr. R.P. G.M. College, Kangra, H.P. Dental College, Shimla and Himachal Pradesh Dental College, Sundernagar. The prospectus also contained the definition of the wards of freedom fighters to mean and include the children/grand-children (only from paternal side) of the freedom fighters, the freedom fighter being a person who is declared as such by the Himachal Pradesh Government. The prospectus obliged the furnishing of a certificate to be issued by the District Magistrate of the district concerned and when the petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate on 4.6.1998 for the issue of a requisite certificate in his favour that he is a ward of a freedom fighter, the said authority conveyed to the petitioner by a letter dated 14.7.1998 that the petitioner is not entitled to be issued with such a certificate and that such facility could be availed of only by the children/grand children of a freedom fighter in the State of Himachal Pradesh who are grandsons and grand-daughters from daughters side in case the freedom fighter concerned has no son and since the petitioner himself in the application for the purpose clarified that his mother had three sisters and one brother, the petitioner is not entitled to be issued with a certificate as ward of a freedom fighter, the freedom fighter himself having indisputably a son. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition as noticed earlier for the relief indicated supra.

2. The respondents No. 1 and 4 filed a reply contesting the claim of the petitioner contending that the petitioner being the son of a daughter of Sita Ram freedom fighter, keeping in view the provisions contained in the decision of the Government communicated in the letter No. GAD-F-6(F) 4-12/87-111 dated 11.4.1991, the daughters son/daughters of a freedom fighter are entitled for the benefit envisaged for the ward of the freedom fighters only subject to the condition that the freedom fighter himself had no son, that the application of the petitioner was sent to the Joint Secretary to the Government for clarification and the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (GAD) to the Government affirmed the instructions already issued as noticed supra and that, therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for being issued with a certificate for availing the benefit extended to a ward of a freedom fighter was quite in accordance with law and that no exception could be taken to the same. The second respondent in its counter-affidavit stated that the petitioner cannot claim himself to be the ward of a freedom fighter since he does not