Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yatindra Singh, J.
KM.PRIYANKA AGRAWAL - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING, LUCKNOW - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 40897, 39488, 39742 and 40713 Of 1999
Decided On : 12/02/1999
Ashok Khare, Ashutosh Srivastava, HANUMAN UPADHYA, NAVIAN SINHA, R.B.Singhal
Financial dependence on the freedom fighter is not a requirement for claiming benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993.
Headnote:
RESERVATION - DEPENDENTS OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS - FINANCIAL DEPENDENCE NOT REQUIRED - UTTAR PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICES (RESERVATION FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED, DEPENDENTS OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND EX-SERVICEMEN) ACT, 1993 - SECTIONS 2(B), 2(D) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, claiming to be dependents of freedom fighters, challenged the rejection of their candidature in the reserved category for admission to medical colleges. The certificates issued by designated officers indicated that their grandfather was a freedom fighter and they were sons or unmarried daughters of a son of such freedom fighter, but did not explicitly state that they were financially dependent on the freedom fighter.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that financial dependence on the freedom fighter is not a requirement for claiming benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993. The court interpreted the definition of "dependent" under Section 2(b) of the Act to include sons, daughters, sons of sons, and unmarried daughters of sons of freedom fighters, without any condition of financial dependence.
Issues: 1. Whether financial dependence on the freedom fighter is a requirement for claiming benefits under the Reservation Act? 2. Whether the format provided in the brochure for certificates was mandatory? 3. Whether the petitioners' certificates complied with the mandatory provisions of the brochure? 4. What relief could be granted to the petitioners considering the seats had been filled up by the time they were allowed to participate in the re-counselling?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of "dependent" under Section 2(b) of the Reservation Act to include sons, daughters, sons of sons, and unmarried daughters of sons of freedom fighters, without any condition of financial dependence. The court found no justification for reading a condition of financial dependence into the Act, especially considering that the Act was enacted 46 years after independence when many freedom fighters may not be alive or may be retired. 2. The court held that the mandatory provisions of the brochure issued by the respondents were binding, but the rejection of the petitioners' candidature was not justified as the certificates they produced contained the necessary information required by the brochure, even though they were not in the exact format prescribed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order canceling the petitioners' candidature in the reserved category, and directed the respondents to grant admission to the petitioners in the course according to their merit in their category in the combined pre-medical test-1999.
( 1 ) DOES a candidate in order to qualify as a dependent of a freedom fighter, should be financially dependent upon him? What is the interpretation of the word dependent In the Uttar Pradesh public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (the reservation Act ). This is the main question in these four writ petitions. This is how it arises. FACTS
( 2 ) ADMISSIONS to Medical Colleges in the State are made on the basis of a competitive examination known as Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT ). The CPMT is conducted every year and was held this year in July, 1999 (CPMT-99 ). There is reservation in admissions in the medical colleges. The brochure issued by the respondents states that all rules relating to reservation in the State will apply. It further provides 5% of horizontal reservation for actual dependents of freedom fighters. The brochure also includes format of the certificates to be submitted by a candidate, while claiming reservation. The certificate No. 6 of clause 5 of the brochure deals with a dependent of a freedom fighter. The format indicates that an officer of the state has tc certify that : * There is a person, who is a freedom fighter within the meaning of the Reservation Act ; * The candidate is a son or a daughter (unmarried or married), or son of a son or unmarried daughter of a son, of that person (freedom fighter) ; and * He (the candidate) is his dependent under the Reservation Act.
( 3 ) PETITIONERS appeared in the CPMT-99 in the reserved category of dependents of a freedom fighters. The results of the CPMT-99 were declared in August. 1999 and the successful candidates were called for counselling. The petitioners were also called for counselling in this category. They produced certificates from the designated officers. All certificates indicated that their grandfather was a freedom fighter within the meaning of the Reservation Act and they arc sons son or unmarried daughter of a son of such freedom fighter. This was sufficient for claiming benefits under the Reservation Act. The certificates substantially certified the information required, but were not the exact replica of the format mentioned in the brochure. The certificate in the first writ petition also indicated that the petitioner is also dependent of the freedom fighter within the meaning of the Reservation Act. But the certificates in the remaining three writ petitions did not so indicate.
( 4 ) THE petitioners filed the writ petitions challenging the rejection of their candidature in the reserved category. The Court by different interim orders directed the respondents to conduct fresh counselling and re-admit the petitioners according to their merit in the reserved category. The recounselling took place on 9. 10. 1999, and by that date all petitioners produced the certificates in the exact format but they were not given admission according to their merit as presumably all seats were filled up. The Director General, Medical Education and Training, U. P. Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow (the contesting respondent) has filed application for vacating the interim orders. The counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, these four writ petitions are being decided on merits. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
( 5 ) I have heard Sri Navin Sinha, Sri R. B. Singhal, Sri Ashok Khare counsel for the petitioners : sri Ashutosh Srivastava counsel for the contesting respondent ; and Sri Hanuman Upadhyay. Additional Chief Standing Counsel as a friend of the Court. Following points arise for determination in these cases. (i) What is the law relating to reservation for dependent of a freedom fighter in admission to the medical colleges? Is the Reservation Act applicable? (ii) What is the meaning of word dependent in the Reservation Act? Should a candidate be financially dependent on the freedom fighter in order to qualify as a dependent? (iii)
