Article 226 Constitution of India - No writ of Mandamus can be issued by High Court to the State Government for reservation/quota for admission in Colleges.
Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision and the State Government is the best judge to grant reservation - SUPREME COURT.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India quashed the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for being unsustainable, who had directed, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to the State of Punjab to issue fresh notification for the reservation/quota to the non aided institutions stating that the High Court has exceeded the jurisdiction under Article 226
The Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna allowed the appeal of the State of Punjab who approached the Apex Court against the impugned direction of the High Court under writ of Mandamus. However the Hon'ble Court viewed that the issue regarding the writ of mandamus for notification, providing 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab is kept open for 'question of law' as such a issue has become academic, as prayed by the learned Senior Advocate of the Respondents/writ petitioners
The High Court, in writ petitions filed by a bunch of writ petitioners, by its impugned judgment had directed the State of Punjab to issue fresh notification for providing 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab as well as to the management quota seats. Further it directed to provide fresh notification for a sport quota of 3% in Government medical/Dental Colleges.
HISTORY
The history of the present case is that in the year the State of Punjab had enacted the Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006 for the regulation of admission, fixation of fee and making of reservation in Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions in the State of Punjab. Section 6 of the said Act provides for reservation of seats in all private health sciences educational institutions for admission in open merit category and management category for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to such extent as may be notified by the State government.
As against 3% reservation in admissions, provided in Sports Policy framed in the year 2018, for graded sports persons, in all government organizations, after conscious decision of the State Government provided 1% reservation for sport persons under Clause 10 of the said Sports Policy.
In the academic year 2018-29 issued notification for admission in Medical/Dental Colleges. Clause 16 of the said notification provided for reservation in government Medical/Dental Colleges and Clause 17 provided for admission to private institutes. In the notification 1% State quota seats for sports persons and the children children/grandchildren of terrorist affected persons were reserved for Government institutions only whereas no such quota seats were provided for private institutions. Therefore a bunch of writ petition were filed in the High Court whereby the Court declared that reservation that is applicable to government institutes shall also extend to the private institutes but on appeal by the State.
In the academic year 2019-20 the State Government issued a notification. Clauses 15 & 16 provided for reservation in Government Medical/Dental Colleges as well as admission to private institutes respectively. Clause 15 provided for 1% reservation for sports persons; 1% reservation for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons and 1% reservation for children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons in the State quota seats in government institutions. Clause 16 provided for 1% reservation for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist affected persons, children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons and 1% for wards of defence personnel so far as the State quota seats in private institutions are concerned. However, no such reservation was provided for the management quota seats.
Again a bunch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the said notification for not (i) not providing reservation for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist affected persons and children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons insofar as the management quota seats in private institutes are concerned; and (ii) for providing 1% reservation for sports persons insofar as the government Medical/Dental Colleges as well as the private institutes, instead of 3% reservation for sports persons. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and issued the following directions:
" a) The State is directed to issue a fresh notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental Institutions in the State of Punjab. This reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats as well.
b) The notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges.
(c) While determining inter se merit of candidates possessing the same sports gradation, only the NEET score shall be considered.
(d) Implementation of the 10% quota for economically weaker sections and the calculation thereof by the State of Punjab is upheld".
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the State of Punjab preferred appeals against the impugned judgment .The above directions, more particularly directing the the State to issue fresh notification, by the High Court became the subject matter of the case.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate for the State submitted that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court directing the State to provide for reservation as such thing should be left to the wisdom of the State Government. "The Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India, an enabling provision, provides for the State to reserve for a particular class/category and no State can be compelled and/or no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to provide for reservation for particular class/category" - Ms. Arora argued heavily relying on the numbers of previous decisions such as Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others (2010) 1 SCC 477, Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others (2015) 12 SCC 308 Suresh Chand Gautam vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 11 SCC 113, and Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 1.
Now the question came up for consideration to be decided by the Supreme Court, for which the Court relied extensively on all the cases put forth by the learned Senior Advocate for State.
"Whether the State government's action taking a policy decision to prescribe a particular percentage of reservation/quota for a particular category of persons, can be interfered with by issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the State government to provide for a particular percentage of reservation for a particular category of persons other than what has been provided in the policy decision taken by the State Government".
In Gulshan Prakash's case, it was observed by the Apex Court that "there cannot be any mandamus by the Court to provide for a reservation for a particular community. It was also observed and held that Article 15(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision and the State Government is the best judge to grant reservation for SC/ST/backward categories at postgraduate level. any policy and the decision of the State not to make any provision for reservation at postgraduate level suffers from no infirmity. It was further observed that every State can take its own decision with regard to reservation depending on various factors".
Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others, it was observed that the State can make provisions for reservations in matter of promotion to any post in favour of any class/classes, if it thinks they are not adequately represented in services under the State. It was observed that power lies with the State to make provision but, at the same time, Courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily make such a provision.
Suresh Chand Gautam vs State of Uttar Pradesh in which it was held that no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to constitute a committee or appoint a commission for making survey and making necessary qualitative data of the State for granting reservation in promotion.
In the case of Mukesh Kumar and another again the Court had reiterated that no mandamus can be issue by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation. It was further observed that no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT IN PRESENT CASE:
The Court opined that the High Court has committed grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the State Government to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sport persons, instead of 1% as provided by the State Government. According to Supreme Court, a conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to provide 1% reservation/quota for sport persons. The High Court exceeded the exercise of power under Article 226 and therefore deserved to be quashed and set aside.
Case:
The State of Punjab Versus Anshika Goyal and others (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2022)
DOJ: 22.01.2022
0 Comments