Allahabad High Court
Rishika Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9093 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rishika Chauhan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner is the grand daughter of the freedom fighter and was thus, entitled to be considered for reservation granted under Clause 8 (4) (d) of conditions specified in the Advertisement No. 2 of 2021 (Annexure No. 1) while filling the Registration Form issued by the respondents. It is stated that online application was invited for selection by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board through Advertisement No. 2 of 2021 for filling up vacant posts of 2529 teachers in schools in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the last date of submission of online form was 15.4.2021. It is prayed that the grand father (Nana) of the petitioner was a freedom fighter and was issued an Identity Card. However, it is also admitted that the petitioner is domicile in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner claims that she could not apply under the category of reservation (dependents of freedom fighters) to which she was entitled solely on the ground that the petitioner is a resident and domicile in the State of Uttarakhand.
Counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the provisions of Clause 8 (4) (d) of the Advertisement No. 2 of 2021, the dependents of the freedom fighter have been defined to be the grand son and grand daughter, whether married or unmarried, and thus, the petitioner could not have been denied the reservation.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that Clause 8 provides grant of reservation on various grounds, however, there is a rider to any claim of reservation that the applicant has to be a resident of State of Uttar Pradesh and thus, he argues that Clause 8 (4)(d) of the Advertisement No. 2 of 2021 cannot be read separately from Clause 8 (1) of the Advertisement No. 2 of 2021, which would override.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 30.8.2016 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 23936 of 2018 (Anmol Deep Vs. State of UP and 3 others) wherein this Court was considering the grant of reservation to the dependents of freedom fighter and in that case, the Court observed that the domicile of the grand father could not determine the eligibility of the grand children and a freedom fighter remains a freedom fighter throughout Indian and is not dependent on his domicile.
In view of the said judgment, the petitioner argues that she is entitled to the benefit as claimed in the writ petition.
The argument of petitioner does not get any support from the judgment dated 30.8.2016 in Anmol Deep (supra) for the sole reason that case in hand is absolutely on a different. Facts in the present case and the reservation in all circumstances, were to be given only to a person who was a domicile in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a domicile in the State of Uttar Pradesh, thus, she is not entitled to any of the reservations in terms of Clause 8 of the Advertisement No. 2 of 2021.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021
vinay
