V.G. Subramaniyan vs The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department

The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, filed a writ petition, seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus questioning Clause 41(i) of the prospectus issued by the third respondent for M.B.B.S. Admission, 2014-2015 and further a direction to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner''s daughter being descendants of the Freedom Fighter under Freedom Fighter quota in any of the Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.

The clause in question in the prospectus provides for reservation for the children of freedom fighters and the total number of seats reserved in M.B.B.S. course is three. The said provision reads as under :

"41. SPECIAL CATEGORIES :-

(i) Seats Reserved for children of Freedom Fighters

No. OF SEATS RESERVED IN M.B.B.S. - 3.

Adopted/Foster son/ daughter are not eligible to seek admission under this category. Grand Children of freedom fighters are not eligible. The candidates while applying under the Special Category mentioned above should furnish the following copies of documents along with the application."

The appellant, indisputably, was the son of the freedom fighter and he was claiming the relief for his daughter, namely, S.Priya, who had passed her higher secondary examination, securing 1159 marks out of 1200 marks in 2013-2014, against the reserved seat for the son and daughter of the freedom fighter.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was that if the reservation is not extended to the grand children, the reservation becomes a dead letter, as the son and daughter of the freedom fighter, after India attained independence 67 years before, are not eligible for admission to any medical course. Thus, the said provision be quashed and the authorities be directed to extend the benefit of reservation to the grand children also. It was also contended that the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the Puducherry University have extended the benefit of reservation to the grand children of freedom fighters. Thus, the Government cannot adopt restricted policy confined to the sons and daughters of the freedom fighters only.

The learned Single Judge, relying on a decision dated 25.08.2010 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No. 133 of 2010, rejected the writ petition as the issue stands settled. The Division Bench, as referred to above, observed as under :

"If the policy of the Government to extend the benefit of special reservation to the children of freedom fighters is un- workable, the Government may review the same. But, when the policy itself is to confine the benefit only to the children of the freedom fighters, the Court cannot give a direction to extend such benefit to the grand children of the freedom fighters also and as rightly put in by the learned Additional Advocate General, extension of concession to further categories will certainly reduce the opportunity of the meritorious candidates who compete based on merit.

For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the order dated 24.09.2009 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No. 5050 of 2009 has to be set aside."

We have examined the case carefully, after having considered the other aspects of the matter. It appears that the freedom fighters were not in a position to take care of their children in education and that is why, it was considered appropriate by the Government to give reservation and also in view of the commitment and sacrifice made by them. India has attained independence 67 years before, after completion of 67 years, it does not stand to rational logic to grant reservation to grand children also when they are competent to compete with other similarly situated candidates.

We are, thus, of the view that the order passed in the writ court is reasonable, warranting no interference. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.