- (1.) 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.;