HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 11045 of 2025 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kumar Shresth, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gagan Mehta, Advocate for Respondents-3 and 4. 2. Petitioner before this Court is admittedly a domicile of State of Bihar as well as he has a certificate of Dependent of Freedom Fighters, domiciled of State of Bihar, i.e., outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. Petitioner has participated in examination process initiated by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission for the post of Assistant Professor (Economics) under the category of Dependent of Freedom Fighter (DFF). Petitioner remained successful and appointment letter dated 25.03.2023 was issued and he joined at Nehru Mahavidyalay, Lalitpur. 4. Subsequently, U.P. Higher Education Service Commission stood abolished and substituted by U.P. Education Service Selection Commission, which issued a notice dated 01.04.2025 and asked the petitioner to appear before a Committee constituted by Commission on 09.04.2025 to clarify a dispute of certificate of Dependent of Freedom Fighters. Petitioner appeared and placed his case. Thereafter vide an order Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gagan Mehta, Prabhakar Awasthi Dr. Raushan Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) dated 03.07.2025 Secretary, U.P. Education Service Selection Commission, Prayagraj cancelled candidature and selection of the petitioner. On basis of said order the Director of Higher Education an passed order dated 08.07.2025 whereby placement order dated 25.08.2022 issued in favour of petitioner was also cancelled. 5. On basis of above referred two orders, Secretary/ Manager of Nehru Mahavidyalay, Lalitpur passed an order dated 09.07.2025, whereby his appointment was also cancelled. 6. All the above referred three orders are challenged before this Court. 7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that during proceedings an inquiry was conducted whereby certificate of Dependent of Freedom Fighters issued in favour of petitioner was found genuine. He further submits that only on basis that petitioner was a domiciled outside the State of U.P., his candidature as well as appointment cannot be cancelled. He referred a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Anmol Deep vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 SCC OnLine All 6696 as well as a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar Maurya and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 SCC OnLine All 8042 that the relevant Section 2(d) of U.P. Public Service Service (Reservation For Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1993”) was read down so much that the Dependent of Freedom Fighters, hearing domicile of outside State of U.P. cannot be excluded. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondents-3 and 4 has placed reliance of a subsequent judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench WRIA No. 11045 of 2025 2 of this Court in Heena Bisht vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020(5) ADJ 696 and a Division Bench judgment in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Tejaswi Kumar Pandey, 2017:AHC:98913-DB, wherein the above referred clause of Act, 1993 was considered and it was held that said Act has extended benefit of reservation only in respect of such freedom fighters, who were domicile of State of U.P. In Heena Bisht (supra) the Coordinate Bench has taken note of Anmol Deep (supra) and has distinguished the said judgment in following manner: “19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement in Anmol Deep (supra). In the said judgement itself, the Court was of the view that the case of the Tejaswi Kumar Pandey (supra) was in respect of service matter and had strictly applied the definition; whereas, the case of Anmol Deep (supra) was not related to the service matter, but for getting admission in MBBS Course. Therefore, the said decision is of no help to the petitioner herein. The present case pertains to the service matter, which, even as per the decision in Anmol Deep (supra), has to be strictly applied with the definition of the Act of 1993.” 9. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the view taken by Division Bench in Tejaswi Kumar Pandey (supra) and Coordinate Bench in Heena Bisht (supra) is absolutely applicable in the present case, since in the present case also recruitment process was for a service within the State of U.P. only whereas in Anmol Deep (supra) the recruitment process was not limited to a particular State but it was a selection for all States. 10. In aforesaid circumstances, since admittedly petitioner’s certificate for Dependent of Freedom Fighters was for domicile of State of Bihar, i.e., WRIA No. 11045 of 2025 3 not for State of U.P., therefore, in the light of Tejaswi Kumar Pandey (supra) and Heena Bisht (supra) Court of the opinion that there is no illegality in impugned orders. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. October 10, 2025 AK WRIA No. 11045 of 2025 4 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad