Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Pursuant thereto the State Government by the U.P. Act No. 6 of 2015, amended the Act, 1993. In prefatory note it was mentioned that the said amendment is being brought in view of the fact that the High Court in Isha Tyagi (supra) has declared the clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, 1993 unconstitutional. The prefatory note of the U.P. Act No. 6 of 2015 is as follows:

"Prefatory Note--Statement of Objects and Reasons.--The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993) has been enacted to provide for the reservation of posts in favour of physically handicapped, dependents of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen. Clause (b) of Section 2 of the said Act defines the word "dependent". In accordance with the said definition son and daughter (married or unmarried) and grandson grand daughter (son or daughter of a son) (married or unmarried) are the dependents of a freedom fighter. The Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad has in Writ Petition No. 41279/2014, Isha Tyagi v. State of U.P. held in their order dated August 26, 2014 that gender based discrimination is unconstitutional. In the light of the said order, it has been decided to amend the said Act to include the son and daughter of a daughter of a freedom fighter.

Regard being had to the fact that the State did not challenge the judgment in Isha Tyagi (supra) rather it amended the Act, 1993 by the Amendment of 2015. The amendment was made in terms of declaration and the necessary amendment of sub-section (2) of the Act, 1993 was made including the children of the daugthers of freedome fighters.

Suffice it would be to mention that in prefatory note of the amendment it is recorded that the amendment has been made in the line of law laid down by High Court in Isha Tyagi (supra). The petitioner was permitted to appear in the counselling by this Court vide interim order dated 21.11.2014. The interim order was complied with by the respondents and she was allowed to participate in the counselling hence the fifth respondent is not justified declining to give the benefit of amendment Act to the petitioner on the ground that she had not sought the benefit of sub-section (b) of Section 2. The fifth respondent has failed to consider that the judgment in Isha Tyagi (supra) came on 26.8.2014 hence she became entitled for the benefit of the said judgment after 26.8.2014 and, as mentioned above, the interim order was passed after the judgment of in Isha Tyagi (supra). As also the benefit of the judgment in Isha Tyagi's case should have been extended to the petitioner for the reasons mentioned above. For the said reason the impugned order of the fifth respondent stands vitiated.