Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.S. Jha and Smt. Nandita Dubey, JJ.
Kushal Saxena v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.11518 of 2017 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 21.8.2017.
Sanjay Kumar Verma for petitioner; S.M. Lal, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Anoop Nair for respondent No.2/M.C.I.
Headnote:Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- petition for issuing directions to issue certificate and register name of petitioner as dependent of Freedom Fighter -- grandfather of petitioner was Freedom Fighter of State of U.P.
-- no merit in contention that petitioner whose grandfather was Freedom Fighter registered in State of U.P. should be granted benefit under Freedom Fighter category in State of M.P. -- petition dismissed.
Held : In view of the above, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner whose grandfather was a Freedom Fighter registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh should be granted the benefit under the Freedom Fighter category in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 1984 JLJ 105 relied on.
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & izek.k i= tkjh djus rFkk ;kph dk uke Lora=rk lsukuh ds vkfJr ds :i esa jftLVj djus gsrq funs'k tkjh djus gsrq ;kfpdk & ;kph ds firkeg mRrjizns'k jkT; ds Lora=rk lsukuh Fks & bl izfrokn esa dksbZ xq.kkxq.k ugha fd ;kph ftlds firkeg mRrjizns'k jkT; esa jftLVMZ Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh Fks mUgsa eŒizŒ jkT; esa Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh dh Js.kh ds v/khu ykHk fn;k tkuk pkfg, & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mijksDr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ge ;kph ds fo}ku dkmUlsy ds izfrokn esa dksbZ xq.kkxq.k ugha ikrs gSa fd ;kph ftlds firkeg mRrjizns'k jkT; esa jftLVMZ Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh Fks mUgsa eŒizŒ jkT; esa Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh dh Js.kh ds v/khu ykHk fn;k tkuk pkfg,A 1984 ts ,y ts 105 voyafcrA
1. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to issue a certificate and register the name of the petitioner as dependent of a Freedom Fighter and thereafter direct the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore in accordance with the allotment letter, (Annexure P-4).
2. The facts in brief, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Examination, 2017 for the purposes of obtaining admission in the MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Madhya Pradesh under the Unreserved Freedom Fighter quota. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner is the grandson of Late Shri Raj Narayan Saxena, a Freedom Fighter, who is registered as such in Agra district in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner states that the“petitioner's father subsequently migrated to Madhya Pradesh and has settled in Satna and the petitioner has also undergone and undertaken his entire education in Satna itself and, therefore, at present is a bona fide resident of Satna, Madhya Pradesh.
3. The petitioner further states that he had applied for admission under the Unreserved Freedom Fighter category on the strength that his grandfather was a Freedom Fighter registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh and in accordance with his merit in that category, a letter of provisional allotment (Annexure P-4) has been issued by the respondents, whereby he has been allotted Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore for the purposes of pursing the MBBS course.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the aforesaid provisional allotment, the respondent authorities are denying admission to the petitioner on account of the fact that the Collector, Satna has refused to issue a Freedom Fighter dependent certificate to the petitioner on the ground that his grandfather was a Freedom Fighter of the State of Uttar Pradesh and is already registered at Agra in the State of Uttar Pradesh as such and, therefore, as his grandfather was a Freedom Fighter of Uttar Pradesh, he cannot be granted a certificate to the effect that the grandfather of the petitioner was a Freedom Fighter of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner is his dependent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstances, necessary directions be issued to the respondents.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State, on advance copy, submits that the issue raised by the petitioner stands concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ku. Madhu Mittal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1984 JLJ 105=AIR 1984 MP 59], wherein a Division Bench of this Court has already held that reservation for Freedom Fighters in a particular State are confined to the children and grand children of Freedom Fighters who are bona fide residents of that State and such a benefit cannot be claimed by the children or grand children in other States. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the law in this regard, has rejected the claim of the petitioner therein and in such circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner be also dismissed in view of and in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Ku. Madhu Mittal (supra).
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/M.C.I., on advance copy, has also“reiterated the same submissions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ku. Madhu Mittal (supra), it is observed that the Division Bench in paragraphs 11, 15 and 18 has held as under :
“11. Now the question before us is whether the requirement in the Admission Rules about the bona fide residence of a Freedom Fighter can be called discriminatory. In D. P. Joshi v. Madhya Bharat State,
