IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 17-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.13616 of 2009 P.Jeyaram .. Petitioner. Versus The Secretary, Selection Committee for MBBS/BDS Course, Chennai-10. .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to provide one seat in M.B.B.S Course for the academic year 2009-2010 to the son of the petitioner, namely, J.Arun. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondent : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate O R D E R By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. The petitioner has stated that his son, J.Arun, had successfully completed the Higher Secondary Examinations, held in the month of March, 2009. He had secured 132 marks out of 200 marks in Physics, 154 marks out of 200 marks in Chemistry and 170 marks out of 200 marks in Biology. As such, he is eligible to be considered for selection for the M.B.B.S course, for the year 2009-2010, under the freedom fighters quota, as he is a grandchild of a freedom fighter. It has been stated that the petitioner's father was a freedom fighter, who had died, on 12.11.2007. The petitioner's son, J.Arun, with a cut off mark as 166.50, is ranked at 2472, under the MBC/BC category. Therefore, he should be entitled to get one of the three medical seats reserved under the special category for the children of freedom fighters. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the special category of reservation for the children of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ freedom fighters, for admission in the M.B.B.S. Course, should be actually for the grandchildren of freedom fighters, since it would be a redundant provision, as no child of a freedom fighter would be of the right age, aspiring to get admitted in M.B.B.S course, at this point of time. Therefore, the term "children" should include grandchildren of freedom fighters. Only then the reservation under the special category will have a real meaning. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the instructions received by her from the respondent, had denied the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. She had also submitted that "children" would not include grandchildren of freedom fighters. She had submitted that this Court, under similar facts and circumstances, had passed orders, rejecting the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel 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 year's 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 petitioner's 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. 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." 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, while dealing with a similar issue had held, in his order, dated 11.7.2007, 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondent, 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. 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. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To The Secretary, Selection Committee for MBBS/BDS Course, Chennai-10. 1 cc To Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, Advocate, SR.32025 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.32271 Writ Petition No.13616 of 2009 MA(CO) PMK.12.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/