Avani Pandey   [Petitioner] Vs. Directorate General Of Medical Education And Training Thru. Director General Lucknow And Another    [Respondent]

WRIT – C No. – 7708 of 2024

(Delivered by Hon’ble Alok Mathur,J.)

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a great grandchild is not considered a “dependent of freedom fighters” under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters, and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993. This decision was based on a previous judgment in the case Krishna Nand Rai vs. State of U.P., where the court similarly held that a great grandson does not fall within the legal definition of a dependent of freedom fighters.

The petitioner, a candidate who appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 examination, claimed to be the great granddaughter of individuals recognized as freedom fighters by the State of Bihar. She is a domicile of Uttar Pradesh, and her great grandparents were declared freedom fighters by the competent authority of Bihar, where they resided.

The petitioner sought the benefit of reservation for dependents of freedom fighters under the 1993 Act. After being denied permission to participate in NEET counselling, she approached the High Court, arguing that she was unjustly denied the reservation benefits she was entitled to. The petitioner also challenged the guidelines for the NEET-UG 2024 examination on the grounds that they excluded dependents of freedom fighters from other states, such as Bihar, from benefiting under the reservation provisions. She claimed this exclusion violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality and prevent discrimination.

Justice Alok Mathur of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitioner’s claims, ruling that the definition of “dependent of freedom fighters” under the 1993 Act is clear and exhaustive. According to Section 2(b) of the Act, only sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters of freedom fighters are recognized as dependents. The court stated that this definition does not extend to great grandchildren, and the petitioner’s status as a great granddaughter disqualified her from availing the reservation benefits.

The court reiterated its reliance on the earlier case of Krishna Nand Rai vs. State of U.P., in which it was ruled that great grandchildren are not covered by the Act’s provisions. Justice Mathur emphasized that the petitioner’s circumstances were identical to those in the Krishna Nand Rai case, and thus, the same legal reasoning applied. Since the law clearly excludes great grandchildren from the definition of dependent, the petitioner was not entitled to the reservation benefit, leading to the dismissal of her writ petition. The court upheld the legislative intent behind Section 2(b) of the 1993 Act, which strictly defines who qualifies as a dependent of freedom fighters. It confirmed that this definition was intentionally limited to the immediate descendants of freedom fighters (sons, daughters, and grandchildren) and did not include subsequent generations. The ruling also highlighted that the petitioner’s argument that the NEET guidelines violated constitutional provisions could not be sustained since she was not eligible for the reservation in the first place.

Thus, the Allahabad High Court upheld the decision to deny the petitioner the reservation benefits, concluding that great grandchildren do not qualify as dependents of freedom fighters under the U.P. Public Services Reservation Act, 1993.