M. L. Bhai, J. - (1.) PETITIONER No. 1 who claims to be grand father of petitioner No. 2 states that while serving in the police department in 1938 he was involved in a criminal case and he remained absconding for some time. Thereafter, he was arrested and was sent to jail on 29-8-83. PETITIONER No. 1 claims to be a freedom fighter (Swatantrata Sangram Senani) as defined in Rules of 1975. PETITIONER No. 1 is pension-holder for being freedom figther from the State Government as also from the Central Government.
(2.) A reservation is said to have been made for the vacancies in the services for the dependents of the freedom fighters by the Government order dated 15-1-83. In this Government order the definition of the freedom fighter is not the same as is given in Rules of 1975. In the Government order of 1983, the freedom fighter includes a person who has been declared as a absconder and who has been awarded a sentence of 10 whips, but one who has been dismissed from the police due to his participation in the freedom strggle is not shown as freedom fighter. The classification given in the Government order is discriminatory and is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The definition given in the Government order of 1983 is said to have no nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved by the said order. Petitioner No. 1 submits that he had absconded from April 1938 to August, 1938 but the Government order provides that there must be a declaration of absconding. The property of petitioner No. 1 is said to have been attached, and thereafter, the petitioner got himself arrested in August 1938. The Government order of 1983 is not consistent with the Rules of 1975 and discriminatory, therefore the right of the dependents of the petitioner cannot be affected by the Government order 1983. Petitioner No. 2 is said to be the grand son of petitioner No. 1 and is wholly dependent on petitioner No. 1. He is said to have done his M.A- in Phylosophy from the University of Allahabad and possesses all the requisite qualifications for the competitive examination for selection in U. P. Provincial Civil Services. He is said to have made an application' to respondent No. 3 along with a certificate obtained from respondent No. 2 to the effect that petitioner No. 1 is a freedom fighter and petitioner No. 2 is the grand son and dependent of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 has appeared in the combined State Service examination of 1988. Petitioner No. 2 is said to have sought consideration in the category of the dependents of freedom fighter but in view of the Government order of 1983 his case has not been considered for any vacancy reserved for the dependents of the freedom fighter. Respondent No. 2, when approached for issuance of certificate about petitioner no. 2 being dependent of the freedom figther has refused to issue such a certificate in veiw of the Government order 1983. Petitioner No. 2 has also appeared in Upper combined sub ordinate Services Examination held in May 1988 with roll No. 59181 at Allahabad centre. The petitioner had attached the requisite certificate copy whereof is Annexure 7 to the writ petition but his case could not be considered by respondent no. 3 in view of the Government order of 1983.
(3.) ON the aforesaid grounds the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the definition of freedom fighter in the Government order dated 15-1-1983 and seeks a direction that petitioner No. 2 be treated as dependent of petitioner No. 1 and given benefit under the relevant Government order. The petitioners also seek a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioners under the reserved category of dependents of freedom fighter. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 cannot be treated as dependent of freedom fighter under the Government order of 1983. His right to apply under the reserved category is also denied. Respondent No. 1 merely relied on the Government Order of 1983. A rejoinder-affidavit is also filed by the petitioners in which they have reaffirmed the grounds raised by them in the writ petition.;