JUDGMENT 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to 1975's Rules which are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, definition of freedom fighter is given in paragraph 2 of the Rules. Among other persons those persons who have been removed from Military, Para-military or the police services on the ground of their being absconders for having participated in freedom struggle are also included in the definition of freedom fighter. 6. The Government order of 1983 which seems to have been issued to implement the Rules 1975 makes a departure from the Rules of 1975 in so far as definition of freedom fighter is concerned. In para 'ka' of the order it has omitted to include all those persons as freedom fighters which are mentioned in the rules of 1975. The Government order does not include within its fold those persons who have been removed from police service for their participation in the freedom struggle. Because of this omission, petitioner No. 1 may not be able to get the requisite certificate from the concerned authority about his being a freedom fighter and petitioner No. 2 being dependent of the freedom fighter. It is revealed from the record that petitioner No. 1 has been treated freedom fighter and he receives pension from the State as also from the Central Governments. The said Government order of 1983 dated 31-1-1983, copy whereof is placed on record which shows that an amount of Rs. 125/- was sanctioned in favour of petitioner No. 1 and an amount of Rs. 200/- was sanctioned in his favour in terms of Annexure 4 with effect from 15th August, 1972 by virtue of an order dated 17-3-75. Because of the omission in respect of the dismissed police officials in the Government order of 1983. Petitioner No. 2 is not able to get himself declared as a dependent of the freedom fighter. For all intentions and purposes petitioner No. 1 has been treated as the freedom fighter. He has been receiving pension for being a freedom fighter who had taken part in the freedom struggle. Petitioner No. 2 is not able to get himself declared as a dependent of the freedom fighter. For all intentions and purposes petitioner No. 1 has been treated as the freedom fighter. He has been receiving pension for being a freedom fighter who had taken part in the freedom struggle. It is not denied that he was not dismissed from the police service as a result of his participation in freedom struggle in 1938. He fails within the category of freedom fighter in terms of the Rules, copy whereof is placed as Annexure-1 on the record. The government order has unnecessarily made omission in respect of the category to which petitioner No. 1 belongs and on the basis of that omission petitioner No. 2 is not able to obtain a certificate of the dependent of freedom fighter which actually he is. 7. The omission in the Government Order of 1983 with regard to the category of petitioner No. 1 from the list of freedom fighter has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules of 1975. The object of the Rules of 1975 is that all those persons who suffered at the hands of the State authorities ruling the country then for their participation in the freedom struggle which had commenced much before 1938 in India, should not suffer in future for having shown the patriotism and their dependents should be rewarded for the exemplary courage and sacrifices shown by their forefathers during the freedom struggle. The petitioner No. 1's participation in the freedom struggle is recognized by the State Government as also by the Central Government because he is the recipient of the pension as a freedom figther. He cannot be said non freedom fighter for purposes of giving benefit to his dependents in the State Services. Under the Rules he is included as a freedom fighter and naturally if any reservation is made for dependents of freedom fighter the State Government is obliged to consider them in accordance with the Rules which they have framed. Omission in the Government Order of 1983 about the category of the petitioner to which he belongs would not effect his dependents in getting the benefit of reservation in respect of service which the State Government is controlling. 8. The classification made in the Government Order of 1983 appears to be aribitrary. Omission in the Government Order of 1983 about the category of the petitioner to which he belongs would not effect his dependents in getting the benefit of reservation in respect of service which the State Government is controlling. 8. The classification made in the Government Order of 1983 appears to be aribitrary. All those persons who have same quality of characteristic can be grouped together and others who do not possess those qualities can be left out. The qualities and characteristics for being a freedom figther have a reasonable relation with the object of the legislation which is evidenced by the Rules of 1975. The omission in the Government Order of 1983 in respect of the qualities of the freedom figther and its characteristic is not rational and have no nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved. The Rules have only made classification and that classification is sought to be translated into reality by the Government Order of 1983. The Government Order, therefore, cannot discriminate between the same group of persons who are classified together by the Rules of 1975. The Government Order cannot make discrimination between those who are intended to be treated as freedom figther by the Rules of 1975. The Government order in this regard seems to have provided some thing which is not intended to be provided by the Rules of 1975. Any differentia between the same class of people must be intelligible and must have reasonable relation with the object that is to be sought. By discriminating against those who are treated as freedom figthers under rules of 1975, the Government Order of 1983 seems to be discriminatory and unintelligible. It is for the State Government to bring the said Government Order in tune with the object that is to be sought by Rules of 1975. The omission made in the Government Order of 1983, therefore, is to be corrected by the State Government so that in the light of the Rules of 1975 there is no discrimination between the same group of people and same class of people who are called the freedom-fighers. Petitioner No. 2 is dependent of freedom fighter and he is entitled to be given benefit of the reservation which is marked for dependents of freedom fighters. Petitioner No. 2 is dependent of freedom fighter and he is entitled to be given benefit of the reservation which is marked for dependents of freedom fighters. He cannot be denied the benefit because of the omission made in the Government Order of 1983 by the State Authorities in respect of certain category of freedom fighter in iolation of Rules of 1975. 9. Notwithstanding the omission in the Government Order of 1983, the petitioner No. 2 is entitled to be treated as dependent of freedom fighter for the purposes of the reservation for service also in terms of the said Government order. He is entitled to be treated dependent of petitioner No. 1 who admittedly is a freedom fighter. As a result of this finding respondent No. 2 is obliged to issue him necessary certificate for being treated as dependent of freedom fighter. 10. As a result of the findings given above it is not necessary to quash the Government Order dated 15-1-83 but the said Government Order shall deem to include within its definition petitioner No. 1 who was dismissed from the police service in 1938 for having participated in the freedom struggle. The omission in the impugned Government order in respect of the category of the freedom fighter shall not effect the petitioner No. 2 from claiming the benefit of reservation under the said Government Order as a dependent of petitioner No. 1 who admittedly is freedom fighter. The said Government Order shall not in any manner effect the right of the petitioners. The reservation which is made for the dependents of the freedom fighters is, therefore, available to petitioner No. 2 and he shall be given benefit of the said reservation. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue necessary certificate to petitioner No. 2 declaring him as a dependent of the freedom fighter in terms of the Government Order dated 15-1-1983 notwithstanding any omission in the said Government Order, Respondent No. 3 is also directed to consider petitioner No. 2 for any vacancy which is reserved for the freedom fighter in terms of the Government order dated 15-1-83 and consider him for any post for which he is eligible otherwise, as a dependent of freedom lighter. 11. The writ petition succeeds to the extent indicated above. Consequently the petition is allowed. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed.