Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to select and admit the petitioner, for the first year M.B.B.S course, for the academic year 2009-2010, under the Freedom Fighters quota. 4. The father of the petitioner has filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition, for his minor daughter, P.L.Karthika, who had passed the Higher Secondary Examinations, held in the month of March, 2009. She had obtained 1056 marks out of 1200. She had applied for the M.B.B.S. Course, in the general category, as well as under the special category, reserved for the children of freedom fighters. It has been stated that the petitioner is a granddaughter of M.Sundaram, who was a freedom fighter. Since the name of the petitioner did not find a place in the merit list, as well as under the special category, reserved for children of freedom fighters, for the M.B.B.S course, for the academic year 2009-2010, and as she was not called for counselling, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the term "Children" is an inclusive term and it would include grandchildren, as well. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to claim a seat for the M.B.B.S course, under the "children of freedom fighters" quota. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also stated that even though grandchildren were being considered, under the special category, during the earlier years, for admission to the M.B.B.S course, the present prospectus for the academic year 2009-2010, does not include the word "grandchildren" under the special category. It has also been submitted that there would not be any candidate eligible to apply under the special category, since no freedom fighter would have young children who would be seeking admission for the M.B.B.S course, at this stage. It has also been submitted that there would not be any candidate eligible to apply under the special category, since no freedom fighter would have young children who would be seeking admission for the M.B.B.S course, at this stage. In order to give a proper meaning and content to the word "children", under the special category, in the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for M.B.B.S/B.D.S admissions, for the academic year 2009-2010, the word should be taken to include grandchildren of freedom fighters, as well. As such, the petitioner would be qualified to apply for admission to the M.B.B.S course, for the academic year 2009-2010. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, is very clear in stating that only children of freedom fighters would be considered under the special category. She had also submitted that "children" would not include grandchildren of freedom fighters. She had relied on a decision of this Court, in Sarvanan.T.T. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2004(5) CTC 704 ), wherein, it has been held as follows: "17. It is difficult to accept that the exclusion of grandchildren must only be by inadvertance. It is true that children of freedom fighters may not apply for admission in the medical college because of their age. But the extract from the prospectus of this year and last year would show that this year not only under the caption "Seat Reserved" is the word "grandchildren" removed. It clearly says that along with the application there should be documentary proof that the candidate "is the children of the freedom fighter". Last year, the candidate was required to show that he/she is "the grandchildren of the freedom fighter". Appendix I makes it clear that the special category is, "children of freedom fighters". Appendix I of last years prospectus read "grandchildren of freedom fighters". Therefore, the respondent intended to exclude the grandchildren. To the question whether any thought was applied to the fact that no child of a freedom fighter would now apply for admission, the answer may be in the negative. But on that score, a mandamus cannot be granted......" 18. Appendix I of last years prospectus read "grandchildren of freedom fighters". Therefore, the respondent intended to exclude the grandchildren. To the question whether any thought was applied to the fact that no child of a freedom fighter would now apply for admission, the answer may be in the negative. But on that score, a mandamus cannot be granted......" 18. The object of creating reservation for children of freedom fighters is in acknowledgement of the struggle faced by the children/dependants of freedom fighters in competing equally with others. The freedom fighters might have been killed, imprisoned, been impoverished and because of his/her participation in the struggle, the children may have been denied the attention and care given to other children. This is well described in M.Satyanarayana V. State of Karnataka, 1986(2) SCC 512 , wherein it was held, "Reservations in favour of sons of political sufferers are considered to be belonging to a special category. There is rationale behind it. Those who are political sufferers undergo certain disadvantages and pass on such disadvantages to their children. They will be in a worse position than the children of those who are not political sufferers for the purpose of taking adequate education, attention, etc. because their parents might have languished in any prison or might have been deprived of property. Looked at from that point of view, political sufferer should be an identifiable person who could be recognised as such on certain rational basis. It is, therefore, manifest that a person to be a political sufferer must have suffered in any one of the five ways stated in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause(b)." These reasons cannot apply to grandchildren or great grandchildren. Therefore, if the State takes a decision not to extend the benefit under the special category to "grand children and other descendants" it cannot be said to be unreasonable. The fact that no applicant falls under the category of children cannot advance the petitioners case. As a consequence, the State is under no obligation to widen the net nor can a mandamus be issued. As regards the word "children" in the prospectus, it is plain and clear and therefore, must be understood to mean only children. In different circumstances, children may be construed to mean grandchildren. As a consequence, the State is under no obligation to widen the net nor can a mandamus be issued. As regards the word "children" in the prospectus, it is plain and clear and therefore, must be understood to mean only children. In different circumstances, children may be construed to mean grandchildren. But in this case, when the word "grandchildren" in the previous prospectus has been consciously removed, we cannot given an inclusive meaning to the word." 7. A learned Single Judge of this Court, while dealing with a similar issue, had held, in his order, dated 17. 2007, in H.U.Prashanth Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and two others (W.P.No.5851 of 2007), that, for the purpose of interpreting the word "children" it would be dangerous to rely upon the meanings of the word, as found in the dictionaries. As the various dictionaries would give several meanings for the said word, it would depend upon the context in which the word is used. The quota of seats reserved for children of freedom fighters, in the prospectus for admissions in the medical courses, should be construed in a strict manner, as it is an exception to Article 15 of the Constitution of India. It can only be a horizontal reservation and not a vertical reservation. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the grandchildren of freedom fighters could be considered under the special category of reservation. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Though the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for admissions to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, reserves certain seats for special categories in Government colleges, including seats for children of freedom fighters, it cannot be held that such a category would include grandchildren of freedom fighters, as well. 9. Once it is found that there has been a conscious decision to omit the word grandchildren from the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for admissions to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, this Court cannot be persuaded to stretch the meaning of the word "children" to include grandchildren of freedom fighters. 9. Once it is found that there has been a conscious decision to omit the word grandchildren from the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for admissions to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, this Court cannot be persuaded to stretch the meaning of the word "children" to include grandchildren of freedom fighters. Since the provision of certain seats for the special categories is an exception to Article 15 of the Constitution of India, it should be construed in a strict sense. As held by this Court, in the cases cited supra, the phrase "children of freedom fighters" cannot be construed to include grandchildren of freedom fighters. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.