Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 974 (ALL)

Jyoti Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-03-16

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. The petitioner claims to be the dependent of the freedom fighter. Her maternal grand father Late Shyam Narayan Singh was a Freedom Fighter. 2. It is contended that the petitioner applied in pursuance of an advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 issued in compliance of the Government Order dated 27th September, 2011 for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers against 72825 posts in Junior Basic Schools. It is stated that the petitioner in her on-line application did not mention that she is the dependent of freedom fighter. 3. Later, a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 41279 of 2014 (Isha Tyagi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others) vide its judgment dated 26.8.2014 held that the progeny of the children of the freedom fighter are also entitled for the horizontal reservation under the Freedom Fighter quota. The Court has directed that the benefit of 2% reservation for the descendants of a freedom fighter shall be extended both the descendants of freedom fighter tracing lineage through a son or through a daughter irrespective of marital status of the daughter. It is stated that in view of the said law, the petitioner is entitled for her reservation under the Freedom Fighter quota. 4. In view of the Division Bench judgment the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 21.4.2015 to extend the benefit of the reservations to the descendants of the son and daughter of the freedom fighter. 5. From the records it appears that to ventilate her grievance the petitioner has made a representation to the District Basic Education officer. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, that the grievance of the petitioner be considered by the District Basic Education Officer, expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations and order, writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. It is made clear, that this Court has not expressed its opinion on merit of the case, the authority concerned shall pass order independently in accordance with law.