Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions are .being disposed of by a common judgment as they raise an identical issue. The question that arises for consideration is whether an illegitimate son of a Freedom Fighter is entitled to claim the benefit of the reservation carved out for the dependants of Freedom Fighters for the purposes of recruitment to the U. P. Government Upper Subordinate Services. Sons of Freedom Fighters are among the list of relations who are entitled to such benefits as dependants of Freedom Fighters. The claim of the petitioner for being considered in the category of dependants of Freedom Fighters has been negatived by the respondents on the ground that he is not the legitimate son of Sita Ram Jaiswal, the Freedom Fighter, and consequently not entitled to claim the benefit of reservation meant for dependants of Freedom Fighters.
(2.) THE petitioner appeared at the combined Upper Subordinate Services Examination of 1983 for various posts including the post of Sales Tax Officer-2 conducted by the U. P. Public Service Commission. After the written test the petitioner was called for interview and was eventually placed at serial no. 143 in the final selection list prepared by the Commission. It appears that after the declaration of the result of the written examination the Commission received a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he was not legitimate son of Sita Ram Jaiswal, the Freedom Fighter. THE Commission, however, decided to interview the petitioner provisionally and, in the meantime, entrusted the enquiry to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, for investigating the complaint referred to above. THE petitioner and his father Sita Ram Jaiswal submitted their own affidavits and those of two other persons before the Commission. THEreafter the entire material was transmitted to the District Magistrate for consideration. THE petitioner was also directed by the Commission through its office memo dated 25-1-87 to submit documents in support of his claim before the District Magistrate. THEreafter the District Magistrate submitted a report dated 2-3-88 to the Commission. THE report stated that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner revealed that Sita Ram Jaiswal was married to Smt. Prabha Devi and from this marriage there were two sons and one daughter. Smt. Prabha Devi was living separately with these children at Khuldabad and not with Sita Ram Jaiswal. After his marriage with Smt. Prabha Devi, Sita Ram Jaiswal started living with another lady Smt. Janki Devi from whom the petitioner was born. THE District Magistrate concluded that not being a legitimate son of Sita Ram Jaiswal, the petitioner could not be regarded as a dependant of a Freedom Fighter entitled to the reservation carved out in favour of such dependants. THE Commission accepting the report of the District Magistrate issued a letter dated 18-4-88 to the petitioner stating that on a consideration of the entire matter it has decided that the petitioner could not be extended the benefit of the reservation carved out in favour of the Freedom Fighters as he was not a legitimate son of Sita Ram Jaiswal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Commission, the petitioner has filed these petitions. For the petitioner two points have been urged for our consideration. First, that the view taken by the Commission that illegitimate son could not be extended the benefits of dependants of Freedom Fighters is unsustainable in law and, second, that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to participate in the enquiry, held by the District Magistrate. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and given the matter a careful consideration, we find no merit in either of these two contentions. We will take up these points seriatim. The first question which arises for our consideration is whether an illegitimate son can be regarded as a son. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (Fourth Edition), son has been defined as- " Sons and daughters' mean legitimate ones ; unless those that are illegitimate are indicated (see hereon Edmunds v. Fessey 30 LJ Ch. 279 ; Re Fish (1894) 2 Ch. 83 ; An illegitimate son is not a 'son' within the meaning of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938 (c. 45), s. 1 (1) as amended by the Intestates' Estates Act, 1952 (c. 64), ss. 7, 8) (Re Makain, Makein v. Makein (1955) Ch. 194). In common parlance also, son is generally understood as the male- egitimate child of a person. "
(3.) IN Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the term has been defined as a male child or person in relation to either or both of his parents. Parents here, obviously connote those who are legally married to one another. It is, however perhaps only in the broadest sense of the term that an illegitimate son may also be referred to as the son of a person. But there again it will depend on the context in which the term is used. We will, therefore, examine the context in which this controversy arises. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of a provision carving out reservation in favour of the dependants of Freedom Fighters. That reservation can be validly made in favour of the dependants of Freedom Fighters is no longer open to debate and has indeed been firmly settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court (See for example, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of D. N. Chenehala etc. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1762 (paragraph 43 at pages 1775 and 1776). Such a reservation is an instance of compensatory discrimination designed to wipe out the handicap from which the children and dependants of Freedom Fighters suffered in the field of education during the period of struggle for emancipation of this country from foreign rule. It cannot be denied at the same time that such a reservation is intended to pass on an indirect benefit to the political sufferers themselves by providing jobs under the Government to their children and dependants. The idea is to compensate the political sufferers for the handicaps they have suffered as a result of participation in the Freedom Movement.;