Hon’ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.—A brochure which has been issued by the State for entrance to medical courses in the State of Uttar Pradesh, described as CPMT 2014, prescribes the time lines and conditions of eligibility. The brochure envisages that candidates have to submit online applications. The petitioner claims to be a grand-daughter of a freedom fighter of Tehsil-Deoband, District Saharanpur, by the name of Buchha alias Dileep Singh Tyagi. The petitioner has annexed a copy of a certificate dated 26 September 1988 issued to her mother stating that she is the daughter of the above mentioned freedom fighter. The petitioner applied for admission in pursuance of the information brochure. Under the brochure, a reservation of 2% has been provided for descendants of freedom fighters on a horizontal basis. The condition stipulates that the reservation would enure to the benefit of actual descendants of freedom fighters which is defined to include sons, unmarried daughters and son’s sons. The condition in the brochure specifies that the son of a freedom fighter is not required to be financially dependant.

2. The petitioner applied online for admission. The online code for the general category is ten and for the dependants of freedom fighters, it is fifteen. The petitioner submitted representations to the second, third and the fourth respondents on 14 July 2014 and 19 July 2014 seeking extension of the benefit of reservation in the quota set apart for dependants of freedom fighters. By an e-mail in response, the petitioner was directed to present her case at counselling. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been treated as a general category candidate and assigned an overall rank of 20798 whereas her rank in the female category is 9469.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the discrimination which has been made in the quota of 2% set apart for descendants of freedom fighters; in that, the children of a daughter of a freedom fighter are excluded. This condition is postulated on the basis that only an unmarried daughter is entitled to the benefit of horizontal reservation and hence neither a married daughter nor her children would be entitled to receive the same benefit. This, it has been submitted, is contrary to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

4. By an order dated 12 August 2014, the State was directed to file a counter-affidavit explaining in particular the basis for the decision to exclude the children of the daughter of a freedom fighter from the benefit of horizontal reservation. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents informs the Court that despite a communication dated 13 August 2014, no instructions have been made available.

5. The State Government has taken a policy decision to grant a horizontal reservation of 2% to the descendants of freedom fighters. While doing so, the State Government has qualified the condition of eligibility by stipulating that a son or a daughter would be entitled to the benefit of the reservation. However, it has been stated in the relevant condition that the law department had opined that this benefit can be extended only to an unmarried daughter of a freedom fighter. Consequently, whereas the son’s son would be eligible to apply for admission, the children of a daughter stand excluded. Exclusion of a grand daughter is plainly an act of hostile discrimination which is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The condition which has been imposed by the State does not prescribe financial dependence. In fact, the clarification is to the effect that it is not necessary that the son of a freedom fighter should be financially dependant upon him. The basis and object of the horizontal reservation of 2% is to recognise the seminal role in the freedom struggle played by freedom fighters. It is in recognition of their contribution to the freedom struggle that a benefit of reservation is extended to descendants