JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the parties do not propose to file any further affidavits, therefore, the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 3. The petitioner applied for training under the 2004 B.T.C. Programme claiming himself to be a dependant of Freedom Fighter. The fact that the petitioner is a dependant of Freedom Fighter, has not been disputed in the counter affidavit and the only stand taken is that the petitioner’s grand father was a Freedom Fighter from Jharkhand State and the certificate of Freedom Fighter has been issued from Jharkhand. In such a situation, the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents takes a stand that this certificate having been issued from another State would not be acceptable so as to consider the candidature of the petitioner for training of B.T.C. course in the State of U.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 15.1.1983 and the learned standing counsel Sri K.K. Chand has also invited the attention of the Court to the Government Order of 2006 as also the Provisions of U.P. Lok Sewa Adhiniyam, 1993 which has been referred in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. 5. On the strength of the said provisions Sri K.K. Chand, learned standing counsel has contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of dependency of Freedom Fighter as his grand father was a resident of the State of Jhankhand. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The specific stand taken by the petitioner is that since birth he has been residing in the district of Sonbhadra in the State of U.P. He has also given his address of District Sonbhadra and it is contended that he has completed his entire schooling education from the State of U.P. The stand taken in the writ petition is that for all practical purposes the petitioner is a resident and domicile of the State of U.P., and therefore, because his grand father was a Freedom Fighter of the State of Jharkhand, the said benefit of dependency cannot be denied to him. 8. 8. The aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the petitioner to my mind cannot be disputed inasmuch as a Freedom Fighter is a Freedom Fighter for the entire nation. He was not fighting for the Freedom of the State of Jharkhand or for the State of U.P. The status of a Freedom Fighter does not get diluted merely because his dependants have started living in a different state. The status of the petitioner as dependent of a Freedom Fighter has not been disputed. The Competent Authority instead of concentrating on the domicile status of the petitioner has erroneously proceeded to determine the domicile status of the Freedom Fighter. 9. In my opinion, the Competent Authority has committed an error, he ought to have verified the domicile status of the petitioner and not of his grand father. The case would have been different if the certificate of the Freedom Fighter produced by the petitioner was found to be false. This not being the case, the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption and is unsustainable. 10. The order of the District Magistrate dated 25.2.2009 is hereby quashed and the respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above and pass an appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 11. With the observation, the writ petition is allowed. ————