R. B. MISRA, J. Heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Devi Prasad Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. D. Dubey, learned Counsel for U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, and Sri Sandeep Mukherjee & Mrs. S. Rathi, learned Standing Counsels for the State respondent. With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties this writ petition is being decided finally at this stage in view of the Second Proviso to Rule-2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment of trained graduate teacher (Social Science) as reserved category candidate treating him as dependent of Freedom Fighter on the basis of the certificate dated 13. 01. 1999 issued by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur. 3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a B. A. , B. Ed. and is fully qualified for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Science) and petitioner is also a dependent of freedom fighter and the certificate dated 13. 01. 1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was issued in his favour by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur in support thereof. It appears that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh has promulgated Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 [u. P. Act No. 4 of 1993], which came into force on 11-12-1993, whereby 5% seats were to be kept reserved for the above categories e. g. physically handicapped, dependent of freedom lighters as well as ex-servicemen. Subsequently, Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 [u. P. Act No. 4 of 1994] deemed to have come into force on 11-12- 1994. 4. Subsequently, Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 [u. P. Act No. 4 of 1994] deemed to have come into force on 11-12- 1994. 4. Section 2 of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993 is amended by the aforesaid amended U. P. Act No. 6 of 1997 and for clause (f) of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993, the following clause has been substituted as under: " (d) for clause (f) the following clause shall be substituted, namely: - (f) words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 shall have the meaning assigned to them in that Act. " 5. It is clear by the aforesaid amendment that the words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 shall have the meaning assigned to them in that Act. 6. The "public Service and Post" defined in the Act No. 4 of 1994 is reproduced as under:- " (c) "public services and posts" means the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State and includes services and posts in- (i) a local authority. (ii) a co-operative society as defined in clause (v) of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 in which not less than fifty one percent of the share capital of the society is held by the Slate Government. (iii) a Board of corporation or a statutory body established by or under a Central or a Uttar Pradesh Act which is owned and controlled by the State Government or a Government Company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid-up share capital is held by the State Government. (iv) an educational institution owned and controlled by the State Government or which receives grants in aid from the State Government including a university established by or under a Uttar Pradesh Act, except an institution established and administered by minorities referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution: (v) respect of which reservation was applicable by Government Orders on the date of the commencement of this Act and which are not covered under sub-clauses (i) to (iv ). " 7. Later on, Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 1999 [u. P. Act No. 29 of 1999] came into force on 21st May, 1999. Section 3 of U. P. Act No. 29 of 1999 reads as below: "3. Amendment of Section 3.-In Section 3 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1) for clause (1) the following clauses shall be substituted, namely: - " (i) in public services and posts two per cent of vacancies for dependents of freedom fighters; (i-a) in public services and posts other than Group a posts or Group b posts, on and from May 21, 1999 two per cent of vacancies, and on and from the date on which the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 1999 is published in the Gazette five per cent of vacancies, for Ex-Servicemen; " 8. As contended on behalf of petitioner, the respondent No. 2 advertised 2045 posts of trained graduate teachers, out of which 603 were to be fulfilled by trained teachers in Social Science, however, no reservation was granted by the respondents to the beneficiaries of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993 and thereby the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of reservation in his category. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court on 18. 04. 2001 and this Court while allowing the respondents to file counter affidavit passed an order on 20. 04. 2001, operative portion of which reads as follows:- "the petitioner has applied for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being extended benefit of reservation in the category of Freedom Fighter. 2001 and this Court while allowing the respondents to file counter affidavit passed an order on 20. 04. 2001, operative portion of which reads as follows:- "the petitioner has applied for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being extended benefit of reservation in the category of Freedom Fighter. Sri Anil Kumar, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Chayan Board, states that reservation in respect of the post of Trained Graduate Teacher is not available. " Subsequently on 2-8-2002 this Court was pleased to indicate that "any appointment made shall be subject to the decision of this writ petition". 9. According to the petitioner, when act has emphatically provided in the year 1993 and 1997 and subsequently in the year 1999, the reservation for dependents of freedom fighters inter-alia for other categories of persons, the State Government in not following the reservation policy provided by its own act is an attempt to jeopardize the chance of the petitioner from being considered in the open selection by the Commission and such attitude of the respondents is discriminating the petitioner and the action of the respondents and State Government is in derogation to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. This Court had expected on 16. 09. 2003 and on subsequent dates on 21-10-2003, 18 12. 2003, 20-1- 2004 and 20-2-2004 from the State Government to indicate its stand by way of affidavit but despite the repeated directions no stand was indicated on behalf of the State Government, therefore, it is presumed that the State Government is not in a position to controvert the stand taken by the petitioner and in absence of controversion the assertions made in the writ petition are treated to have been accepted in view of the judgment the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 2592 (Smt. Naseem Bano v. State of U. P. and others ). 11. Sri R. D. Dubey, learned counsel for the Commission/respondent No. 2 has, however, submitted that even by Section 10 of the U. P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982 (which came in operation on 20. 04. 11. Sri R. D. Dubey, learned counsel for the Commission/respondent No. 2 has, however, submitted that even by Section 10 of the U. P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982 (which came in operation on 20. 04. 1998) (hereinafter in short called as act,1982) the reservation for Freedom Fighters, Ex-Army persons and Physically Handicapped has not been provided and the Commission has only to proceed and conduct examination in reference to the requisitions made on behalf of the State Government. The commission independently on its own has no any criteria or any modality to independently accept the provisions of any act and since in the act, 1982 no reservation in respect of dependents of freedom fighters was provided, therefore, the Commission was defunct for considering and providing benefit of reservation to the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the respondents, specifying the reservation of different categories and also the reservation percentage to different class of category is prerogative of the State Government and is policy matter of the State Government and no directive in respect of providing reservation to a particular category could be given by the Court in reference to 2002 (2) LBESR 330 (All) : 2002 (2) U. P. L. B. E. C. 1948 (Ram Sewak Tripathi v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others), where the question for consideration before this Court was as under:- "2. The petitioner is a visually handicapped person. He is working as Senior Assistant in the scale of Rs. 4000/--6000/-in the Regional Transport Office, Allahabad. By means of this petition the petitioner has approached this Court for the following main reliefs:- (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give 1% reservation in favour of visually handicapped persons separately as provided in the Central Act as well as in the State Act as amended from time to time; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to evaluate candidature of the petitioner on the basis of 35% marks and consequently to permit the petitioner to appear in the main examination conducted by the Commission approximately next month of the year for State/subordinate Services in the year 2001. 3. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the provisions of "the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995" (Act No. 1 of 1996) and the "u. P. Public Service Commission (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, as amended by Act No. 6 of 1997, one post should be reserved for visually handicapped person by the State Government in autonomous bodies financed and controlled by the State Government. It is stated that inspite of the reservation having been provided under the aforesaid Act, the U. P. Government is not giving benefit of the reservation of the visually handicapped persons and loss is being caused to them. " 12. In Ram Sewak Tripathi (supra) this Court (D. B.) under specific prevailing facts and circumstances did not issue any direction to the State Government for consideration of claim of the writ petitioner by saying that providing of reservation in service is solely under the powers of the State Government and no direction to that effect could be given by the Court. 13. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment of this Court in Ram Sewak Tripathi (supra) shall not be applicable in the present case and the facts and circumstances of Ram Sewak Tripathi (supra) were different and distinguishable as in that case there was no percentage of marks fixed by any of the Act of the State Government itself, whereas, while dealing the issue in the present case under U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993 it could be noted that 5% of seats were to be reserved for different category of the persons including dependents of freedom fighters and subsequently 2% reservation was provided by U. P. Act No. 29 of 1999, therefore, in the present case there is a non- observance of provisions and criteria for reservation assured by the State Government in its own act, without any justification. 14. I find force in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, as the case of Ram Sewak Tripathi (supra) shall not come in the way in the present facts and circumstances. 15. 14. I find force in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, as the case of Ram Sewak Tripathi (supra) shall not come in the way in the present facts and circumstances. 15. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent/commission that Commission has already concluded the selection and the appointment orders have been issued, therefore, this Court in writ jurisdiction should not show any generosity in respect of granting relief, however, this aspect shall not carry any legal force as this Court has already indicated in its order dated 2-8-2002 that any selection shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. 16. The text and context of the entire provisions must be looked into while interpreting any of the provision of the Statute. The Court must look to the object, which the Statute seeks to achieve while interpreting the, provisions of the Act/rules/regulations. A purposive approach for interpreting the provision is necessary. 17. It is also settled principle of interpretation of law that any interpretation which leads to hardship and complication, should be avoided. In Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya Dahankar Anr. , AIR 1992 SC 1946 , the Supreme Court has held that "the mechanical. approach to construction is altogether out of play with the modern positive approach i. e. to effectuate to the object and purpose of the Act. " 18. In Colour-Chem. Ltd. v. A. L. Alaspurkar, (1998) 3 SCC 192 , the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of welfare legislation should be construed in a way to give benefit to the persons for whose benefit the rules have been enacted and the Court must examine the policy and object of the act and must advance the cause of enactment. 19. In Durga Oil Company & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , (1998) 6 SCC 299 , the Supreme Court has held that while interpreting the provisions of a Statute or Rules, the purposive interpretation should always be borne in mind. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohd. Ali, 1993 (Suppl.) 3 SCC 627. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , (1998) 6 SCC 299 , the Supreme Court has held that while interpreting the provisions of a Statute or Rules, the purposive interpretation should always be borne in mind. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohd. Ali, 1993 (Suppl.) 3 SCC 627. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , AIR 1991 SC 686 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: "the language of a statutory provision is not static vehicle of ideas and concepts and as ideas and concepts change, as they are bound to do in any county like ours with (he establishment of a democratic structure based on egalitarian values and aggressive developmental strategies, so must the meaning and content of the statutory provision undergo a change. It is elementary that law does not operate1 in a vacuum. It is not an antique to he taken down, dusted, admired and put back on the shelf, but rather it is a powerful instrument fashioned by society for the purpose of adjusting conflicts and tensions, which arise by reason of clash between conflicting interest, It is, therefore, intended to serve a social purpose and it cannot be interpreted without taking into account the social, economic and political setting in which, it is intended to operate. " 20. In S. P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta, AIR 1987 SC 222 , the Supreme Court had held that law should take a pragmatic view of the matter and response to the purpose for which it was made and also take cognizance of the current capabilities and life-style of the community. It is well settled that the purpose of law provides-a good guide to the interpretation of meaning of the Act. The legislative futility is to be ruled-out so long as the legislative policy its. 21. In Daily Pratap v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. , (1998) 8 SCC 90 , the Supreme Court held that the Court must always keep in view the beneficial and social welfare aspect of the Statute. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in Dinkar Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 21. In Daily Pratap v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. , (1998) 8 SCC 90 , the Supreme Court held that the Court must always keep in view the beneficial and social welfare aspect of the Statute. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in Dinkar Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , (1999) 1 SCC 354 ; Regional Provident Fund Commisioner v. S. D. College, Hoshiarpur, (1997) 1 SCC 241 ; and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors. , (1999) 1 SCC 626 . In Vaijanath & Ors. v. Guramma & Anr. , (1999) 1 SCC 292 , the Supreme Court held that remedial Act should be given beneficial interpretation. 22. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. The State Government within us ambit of powers as a policy decision has already decided the controversy by way of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993 for granting 5% reservation of the seats to the physically handicapped, dependents of freedom fighters and ex- servicemen and by U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 has also indicated the modalities and directives for giving reservation for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and persons of other backward classes and has also indicated by U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 to take proper action for those, who are not observing the provisions of reservation policy and since by U. P. Act No. 6 of 1997 under Section 2 (d) for clause (f) the words and expressions used but not defined under the U. P. Act No. 6 of 1997 were to carry the same meaning as provided under U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994. In any case, when the State Government subsequently in sequence to the earlier Act No. 4 of 1993 has extended the benefit to the above categories of persons including dependents of freedom fighters by giving only 2% reservation acknowledging proper implementation of reservation in such category of persons then by merely not mentioning and amending under Section 10 of Act, 1982 the State Government cannot be allowed to ignore the claim of the petitioner for being considered in the reservation category and the Commission too shall be under obligation to observe upto the percentage and criteria provided for reservation of dependents of freedom fighters under different relevant act. The State Government cannot be allowed to say otherwise rather to give implementation of provisions of its own act. In these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be allowed, therefore, mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner within the criteria of 2% reservation of the declared vacancies under the category of dependents of freedom fighter and accordingly final list of selection has to be analyzed, prepared and declared for giving subsequent affects within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In view of the above observations, writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost. Petition allowed. .