Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Dr.L.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner had claimed her candidature for selection in U.P. Upper Subordinate Services notified through the advertisement dated 15.12.1994 under the quota reserved for the dependents of freedom fighters. The petitioner’s grand father Shri Brij Nath Prasad Srivastava was a freedom fighter. Earlier her name was not enlisted amongst the successful candidates, but later on, on the basis of recommendation done by the Commission, her name was recommended for appointment on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Since she could not submit the requisite certificate of dependent of freedom fighter in the prescribed proforma, a letter was issued by the U.P.State Public Service Commission (in short Commission) on 26.4.1999, whereby the petitioner was required to submit a requisite certificate, she submitted the said certificate to the Commission. However, vide letter dated 2.7.1999 issued by the Secretary of the Commission the petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that in her application the petitioner had mentioned that she was married, whereas the benefit provided under the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically handicapped, dependents of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen) Act, 1993 (in short Act 1993) was not available to the married men/women.

3. Aggrieved petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary of the Commission stating therein that at the time of submission of application pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.12.1994 the petitioner was not married, therefore, in her application against the Coloumn of marital status she marked as ‘unmarried’. Later on she got married on 20.1.1995. The Secretary of the Commission rejected the petitioner’s representation vide order dated 16.11.1999. The petitioner had instituted a writ petition being writ petition No. 2024 (SB) of 1999, in which the petitioner had challenged the order dated 2.7.1999 as well as 16.11.1999, passed by the Commissioner rejecting the petitioner’s representation.

4. Section 2(b) of the Act 1993 defines the word ‘dependents’ with reference to a freedom fighter as follows :

(i) Son and daughter (married or unmarried) of freedom fighter.

(ii) Grand-son (son of a son) and unmarried grant-daughter (daughter of a son) of freedom fighter.

5. The relationship between the petitioner and her grand-father is not disputed. Thus she is a grand-daughter of Shri Brij Nath Prasad Srivastava, who had been declared as a freedom fighter. The provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act 1993 being discriminatory were amended and a married-grand daughter was included within the definition of ‘dependents’ of freedom fighters, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.

6. Since the married grand-daughter of the freedom fighter was included within the definition of dependents of freedom fighters, the State Government took a decision vide letter dated 12 April 2010 to appoint her on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, however, no appointment order was issued, therefore, she submitted a representation dated 30.5.2014 before the State Government to appoint her on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, but has failed to get an appointment.

7. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the statement of objects and reasons of amendment introduced in the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 2009 notified on 20 August 2009 and submitted that since the purpose of amendment was to remove the discrimination between the daughter and grand-daughter the State Government decided to amend the said Act to include the married grand-daughter of a freedom fighter in the said definition of word ‘dependents’. He vehemently subm