IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY or SEPTEMBER. 2009 V.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUST:c}: B.S. PATI_I_...L : '
WRIT PETITION No.18534~/201§9 "
BETWEEN:
LGLAKSHA,
S/O. LATE KRANGA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, .
REPRESENTED AS GUARDIAN TO
DAUGHTER, PREETHL
SINCE MINOR, H
R/AT. NG304, ANMGL RESRIVDENCY;
T.V. RAMANAPA1 T
KODAILBAILE, H . .. «
MANGALOREWEYB 003. PETITIONER
[BY SR1. RAVIVAFl\--'LA ::SR. eGUN"SSL}- . A
AND:
1. THE CONVENER, ._
COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST,
{cI,A'I'--2009} ~ V
~ NALS3AR.UNIVERSIT'Y LAW,
" BYITS REGISTRAR,
A ,3»:-76-1_, BARKATPURA,
' ~:-5_0_S 027.
.ANDHRA~PRADESH-
2. NATIONAL LAW SHOOL OF
, INDIA..[}N{VERSI'1"Y{NLSUI).
REP. BY.I'IS REGISTRAR,
= _ BANc»AI,0RE A 560 242,
ATAKA.
"NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF' ADVANCED
LEGAL STUDIES {NUALS}. KOCHI,
REP. BY ITS REGSITRAR.
KALLOR, KOCHI ~« 682 017.
KERALA.
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY.
GANDHINAGAR,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
153-4, GIDC ELECTRONICS ESTATE SECTOR--26.
GANDHINAGAR -- 382 028
GUJARAT.
KUM. SOUMYA NETRA MONDAL, . ~
ADMIT CARD NO.KLO1UO5508, ,
IST YEAR LAW STUDENT (FIVE COURSE),
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED C_AS~'ITE QUOTA.'
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OE INDIAN' ' '-.
UNIVERSITY, NAGAREHAV1 A 560 02,42...'
BANGALORE. . ' '
SRI PREM K AYYATHU I _
ADMIT CARD NO.MMO1Uo852'6,_
15? YEAR LAW STUDENT {FEVEYEAR COURSE). I
SELECTED UNDER' SCHEDUI,.E.D" CAS'1"E.QIIOTA,
NAIIONAL 1.AWS(2}iO_OLIVOF I'NDIAA:.
UN1vERSI'DI';"NASA::§3IDxV'1._;.._560 V0242, '
EANGAIDREV.
KUM,ANUPzxI.¢AARIGALA, ' ~ . u "
ADM1': CARD NO.';N.E)_O3U10.252. .
151' YEAR LAW 'STUDEN'1'I{FI\iEi'. YEAR COURSE),
SELECTED UNDER Sc,HEDU_LED' CASTE QUOTA,
NA'I'IONAL'L_AVJ SCHOOL OE INDIAN
UNIVERSITY';-ANACAARESHAVI --* 550 242,
BANGALORE. '- '
KU'1VI..Ai?}&RA,V'I' IITA
. 'ADMITV NONSOIUOOS27.
L sT"I*EAE._ LAW' STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE),
. SELECTED.VUI~»IDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
'NATIONAL I'AW£=SCHOOL OF INDIAN
UIIIvERSI1fg,j'..NAOAREHAvI -- 550 0242,
BANGALORE.
SR1 PROJWALADIIYA GOPALKRISHNA,
» ADMIT CARD NO.BAo1U00327,
' EST LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE),
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
- " UNIVERSITY,
NAGARBHAVI -- 560 242, BANGALORE.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
KUIVEPREETI RAJORIA.
ADMIT CARD NO.-JDO 1U0469 1,
I3? YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA.
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
UNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI -- 560 242.
BANGALORE.
SRI SUVESH KUMAR.
ADMIT CARD NO.ND03UO9856, I
I51" YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)'
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
UNIVERSITY. NAGARBHAVI --~ 5602.42.
BANGALORE. .
KUIVLRICHA SARASWATI " - _
ADMIT CARD NO.P'I01U127..-'39! 2
157' YEAR LAW STUDENT' {FIVE YELAR.COU.RSVE)' A.
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTTE QUEOTA. I
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OFINDIAN . .
UNIVERSITY, NAGARBIIAvIw- SS0 242,
BANGALORE. J i .4
SR1 PRIYAD§A'R;3V'H.IV .:
ADMIT CARDVNO.c_-:N01U03534'.~ I 2
181" YEAR LAW' STGBENT' :.FIviE YEAR COURSE)
SELECTED IJNIJER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA.
NA'FIG.NAL_ LAW'SCH._OOL 0}? INDIAN
UNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI :..56o__242,
BANGALORE '
'SR1 AMITANANAD; _ V. ._ ~
AD1\iIT CARD NO .ELo2U0e521,
13? LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)
' . SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
. 'IVIA'1'IOI§IAI..L'..43IW'--SCE~iOOLOF INDIAN
'Ul\IIV'ERSITY. VLEIAGARBHAVI -- 560 242,
A '~ .BA1fJGALO'RE_ , I . --'
I5.
KUM.SWATI_ C'cj:EAANDRA.
ADMIT NO.KL02UlO205,
1-ST YEAR LAW STUDENT (FIVE YEAR COURSE)
.SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
» NA'I'I.ONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
ENIVERSIIY, NAGAREHAVI -- 560 242.
EUMPRAVEENA RAJASEKAR.
ADMIT CARD NOBAO I UO0726.
1ST YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
UNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI ««~ 560 242,
BANGALORE.
17. SM SOURAV MANOHAR SARDAR.
ADMIT CARD NO.KLo2Uo6432,
EST YEAR LAW STUDENT [FIVE COURSE) .-
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE 'Q'U~OTA,
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN 1. 2
UN1vERS1TY,NAGARBHAvI -- 560 242, i
BANGALORE. _ A A
(BY M/S. GURURAJ 3: ASSTS. ADV. RORR1-1;
SR1. UDAYA HOLLA. SR. COUNSEL "
FOR SRLVIVEK HOLLA, ADv.;.i~iOR R-2?" -. _
SR1. ADITYA SONDR1, ADV. FQR._R--5.' 6, S, 9. 10, 12516;
R-4 SD.) ~ - r 1 I
.' ::s;i:a= . I
THIS WRIT is FILED DNDER'ARri'iCi,ES 226 ax 227 OF
THE CONS'IiTDTiO'i-.r.__ VOE--'i;NDLAV----..RRAy1NIG" ._'1'0__ QUASI-I THE IMPUONED
SECOND PROW.SIO.1\§(\L IIST 'SELi'{?CTED CANDIDATES FOR
TNDIVIDUAIQ PUBLISHED BY THE 15'?
RESPONDEfNT._ONLY"'~.iR.V_:SO'EAR*--..AS-ALLOTINO TI-IE SEAT "DO THE
PERTTONERADATJGRTER' .TRE_?w+"'RESPONDENT GUJARAT NADONAL
LAW UN1vERiS'Dfl OANDHDIAGAR AT SL. NO.3, IN THE SCHEDULED
CASTE CATEGORY' ATVPAGE 4 TO 9 IS CONCERNED AND Eire.
V "'TF11SA"ii*ETiTiON HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ION :3'1".eS.29o9.;"COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COEJRT__MADE~1f'OLLO\RHNG:»
ORDER
I Petitioner is the father of the minor girl, Preethi. He has
__ “efiletli this writ petition Seeking a direction to respondentsml & 2
I’ to give admission to his daughter to the Undergraduate
different National Law Universities in the country after
completing her 10+2 exams.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that his da14ghterl’hlavirigl U’
evinced interest to pursue the law coursein the 2l?*’i’eresporiL*leri.t 0
University, took CLAT «-~ 2009 under reserved
preference to the 2″” respondent~University .second’U
preference to the 15* p_ respondlen_t-‘Univers*ityV._iA arid third
preference to the 3″‘ ‘On 15.06.2009,
the 1st respondent.Vpublishedlthev in which
the daughter of rank in the merit
list for General in the merit list for
Scheduled on her ranking in the
Schedu1ed”Caste “151 respondent allotted a seat in
the 3″? respolnd.ent«e~iNa’tiona1 University of Advanced Legal
(NUALS}, Koehi’,lvKerala, under the quota reserved for
Icategoiy. As the daughter of the petitioner did
notl’hle1ong.ltop_ ‘the communities classified by the Kerala
‘Government as Scheduled Caste for the purpose of admission
_ professional conrses she was not given admission under the
_”:Scheduled Caste quota in the 3″‘ respondent~ University.
” K
University. He has placed strong reliance On the judgments of
the Apex Court in 1990 (3) sec 130 (MARRI
SHEKHAR mo Vs. DEAN. SETH G.s.:vmmcAL ee.L_LEOE _.__v&..
OTHERS} and 1994 (5) sec 244 (ACTION on _
ISSUE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE To :sCHi§D1?£EB’1
SCHEDULED TRIBES IN THE STATE
ANOTHER vs. UNION OF ANi)TI£ER];’_: d’:~ieiirurmer V’
contends that as the 2″?srespond’entfUniversit§}is established
by the State Legislature undei*’a”St.ate eannot claim the
status of a nationai’ieVe1i;nstitution;'{f,__ ‘ “
6. Draurinig Court to Items 62, 63, 64,
65 & to the Constitution, he
submits thateit is which has to declare the
status o_f_an In’stitutio.n as one of national importance. He also
“contends any attempt made to affect the rights of persons
will be hit by Article 245 of the Constitution
as th.e'”$tate’viregislature cannot make any law which has got
_ tezfztraterifitoxfiiai jurisdiction. In this regard, he has relied on the
_=;§;zdgr’:1ents in A.I.R. 1960 s.(:. 1080 (KAVALAPPARA
KOCHUNI @ MOOPIL NAYAR. Vs. STATES OF
” & KERALA}. 1993 (2) sec 130 [R.S.D.V.FINANCE co.
_ 10 ALLAH;
PVT. LTD. Vs. SHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD”) 1994 (5)
SCC 459 (SHRIKANT Bi-IALCHANDRA KARULKAR 8: OTHERS Vs.
STATE OF GUJARAT 8: ANOTHER).
7. Sri. Ravivarrna Kumar, has also drawn the _
the Court to the Emblems and Names [Preven.–tion.::Improper w.
Use) Act, 1950 to contend that tl1_ere:…ipsz fl
improper use of certain emblems andlnarnes andllrno person
shall use or continue to use _purp’os_ei’of any trade,
business, calling or profession, emblem specified
in the Schedule by the Central of such other
Offices of the Governr:1ent._asa rnay”be’prescrlbed. He, therefore
contends that caiinot name the 2nd respondent
institution’ as ‘nationalllexlkel __ institution.
8. Sriv.Uda’ya llriolla, Senior Counsel appearing for
“the 2:?’repspondentelfiational Law School contends that the 21″
‘national level institution. He invites the
attention of’th_e..9Court to the preamble to the Statute which
lestablislieslthe 2*” respondent~University namely the National
School of India Act, 1986 [Karnataka Act No.22/1986), to
‘nliigiililght the fact that it was the Bar Council of India Trust
VIIIIII _.
which was instrumental in establishing the 2nd respondent-
University to carry out its objects of establishing, maintaining
and running a model law college in India. With this vobjejct.._in
mind, a society by name ‘National Law School of .
was registered under the Karnataka Societiesfiegistration
1960 {Karnataka Act No. 17/1960) with anintention”to”deyfelcfi
teaching and research institute’ higher it
was the National Law School of Society Vijequested
the State Government to ilational School of
India University on the lines’ to enable it to
carry out its objectland fuginctionss with this object,
to enconv1″age._the hes:-tab1ishmcnt”reeof S such a national level
institution in the Wolfe-iiarnataka, the State Legislature
established lthe enacting the law. He takes me
…,.throu.gh. the Consti-tu_tion of the General Council and as also
‘Executive,:Conncil of the 2″” respondentmliniversity and
ernphhasizesllltlive that there is hardly any State Control over
the 253’ resVt>ondent–University which has been conceived by the
H ‘S Council of India Trust as a National Level Institution. It is
further contention that the Governing Council of the 2nd
lmriesnondent — University has framed Regulations providing
EV
M14.
as it is oniy an enabling provision. He places reliance on the
judgments in AIR 1963 so 649 {M.R.BALAJI 8: oriigitsvs.
STATE 01? MYSORE 8: OTHERS) and 2003 (9) scc;29’4;
or INDIA Vs. R.RAJESI-IWARAN & ANQIHER) this,
connection. He also contends that
statutory authorities including the respon’dent~LlniversitieslhasF9
got the power to choose the from” adndissions
have to be made as long) asxit isxnoth tinrevasonable.
In support of this contention; judgment in
1939 (2) sec 145. UNIVERSITY sz
ANOTHER] and :29?’—“(o:§;y.cHANoHALA Vs. STATE
or MYso)z)=;sv3;”‘of_i*i1is:3s). ”
10. reference~to'<t:he.:r.atio laid down in 1990 (3) SCC
130 s~:~iEKHAR mo vs. DEAN, SETH
OTHERS), he places reliance on the
V"1_)ud.gs;ent._et ';;h.e"Apex Court in (2005) 3 sec 1 [S.PUSHPA &
orinzies Vs.–".$,t\kAeuANMUGAvELU & OTHERS) and urges that
[the proposition of law is explained in this case which helps his
– _ V ‘ ‘tcontentions.
W15W
’11. Referring to the conduct of the petitioner in challenging
the process of selection and admission adopted by the
respondent–~UniVersity, Sn’ Udaya Holla draws support from
the following judglnentsi i.e. AIR 1986 SC 1043 {OM
SHUKLA Vs. AK]-IILESH KUMAR SHUKLA sz OTHER.S),’4’_2t):Oi’2_~ {2}
sec 615 (SUNEETA. AGGARWAL Vs. STATE op? Airs. _i>rAN.’A* 5,4;
OTHERS}, 1995 (3) sec 486 {MADANLALEI ro1fHE_1§s7vs.V’s*r’A’rie
or J & K AND omens) and contendsthat tpétificxier
permitted to chailenge the se1ecti:o’nV_pmade .of’resp:on.dents’5-5 to” V
17 and the non«~se1ection’__of his pAd;a=.ighterpAfor thev.cou1§*se in the
2nd respondent-University” the process of
selection without_e’raising”‘ obj.ectioVn,.V:.AV'”=uArgt:iing on the
judgment of;-he’.-V’ the case of SUB!-[ASH CHANDRA
& ANOTHER netflt’ sire-_o1″u)1NATE SERVICES SELECTION
BoAR1§a’az_o’r1»i12;Rs;”sLP’V'{civu} No.24327/2005 disposed of on
. $r:ip_UdayvamI«-iolla contends that a Bench consisting
of of the Supreme Court in Pushpa’s
it case;-..hax(i11g_plaid down the law, the judgment rendered by a
x””‘«.__VBench consisting of two Hon’b1e Judges of the Supreme Court
it rnot have dissented from the ratio laid down by the
Bench. He further submits that in paragraph~46 of
LLLLJIA 16 W
Subhash Cha.ndra’s case it is held that Pushpa’s case can be
an obiter and therefore even if the law iaid down in Pushpa’s
case is taken as an obiter then also it is binding on thiusrCourt.
It is his further contention that in Subhash Ch¢_;r’iitir’¢.1_~’s:%_
reliance placed on the Constitution Bench .e
1 sec 3.94 (.E.V.CH1NNAIAH vs. s1§aTE:,ors* .a,P;_&
is not apposite. ‘ i i
12. Sri.Aditya Sondhi, Ieameid’-,v:_C–ounse1~:tat)pearing for
respondents–5 to 17 contends that institutions which
have All India 1evel._examinati_o–ns’ also r511ov;4 I.»§;iie same practice
of recognising t3_t1e’L_é.»a_tuts:’–of “Caste/ Scheduled Tribe
across the of reservation to such
institutions. “He “examinations conducted by the
UPSC_aI1d the 1fecr*uitrIi’ent’:rnade thereof and the process of
“seiecit-io’ni.A’rnade to AII'””India Institute of Medical Sciences to
~ écontvention. He also contends that the 2″”
rest)ondent}U’n.i’x;ersity has no ‘State’ character. Placing
. ‘:,e1iance*on’:.the judgment in AIR 2994 SC 1861 {State of Tamil
Others Vs. S.V.Bratheeb (Minor) 8: Others) he
-17.”
contends that different and higher standards can be prescribed
by the State for the purpose of attracting better talent.
13. He has filed a memo along with caste certificate_s~l._of
proposed respondents 65, 9, 13, 14 & 16 to
castes are recognized as Scheduled Cas_te in.”the-lfresidential”‘
Order insofar as Karnataka State is eoncernedfithoulgh a:-be
not of Karnataka origin. He has’iVf’u.tftherllexpressed *
anxiety over the fate of the students’ who haveilnlow sought to
be irnpleaded and whoseA–.._selection:~ “s_ought to be challenged
by way of amendment of theVl)_\w’Ifit’ll§ie’titiE5i3,.l V pleads equity for
them and eontenlcislhlthatg their part these
students wholA”ar_e to the course and are
pursuing their to such hardship. in support of
the gr0unds’l”of_f equity pleaded by him for the admitted
has brought to the notice of the Court the
S ‘follojwiiigvi aspects_: 35,
S’ v_ the 2nd respondent — University has been
following this policy of extending reservation to
S. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates
all over the country for the last 22 years;
W18-
(ii) There is no Inis–representation by the students
and that they are selected purely based on’~-their
merit;
(iii) Their selection is being now cha1leng_ed.’by*VV_’ixfay _
amendment to the Writ Petition;
(iv) From Tm July 2009, allithese .sttidents’l:hja.y:e*-beer:
prosecuting their studies. infthe 2’1*’~d_ respor1»d’entQ{
University. K _
(V) Even in Marri Chdnti’rashekar”‘AR§1o’s case at
paragraph 24.,’ the Supreme ‘~-Courtt has taken note
of equity and”««jtistic.e i:1’to”eofnsi’d.eration to protect
the interest of
He also llongihevljudgihent of the Punjab
and Haryana 2:902 P 8: H 103 (DEPAK
vs. U_N_1VERSI’I’Y, KURUKSI-IETRA 3:
OTHERS} on the equity.
14. pp 2Raghavendra,: another Counsel appearing for
17 has adopted the arguments advanced by
the Senioi” Sri.Udaya Holla and the learned Counsel
‘ll _ SI’i.Ad’hitya S-ondhi.
it it “Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on
‘~Tcar’eful perusal of the entire materials on record, the points
” fall for consideration in this case are:
M19-
i) Whether respondents~1 8: 2 were justified_..__in
extending the benefit of reservation for SchednJ_ed._V_
Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates of..d,ii’ferentr~
States while making admission to the ‘
course for the academic year 2009_~iO.–2=1d
respondent–University? wor<is.i5vhether"
the candidates who had the of
Caste and Scheduled Tfibe 'Statesa."other_V_tha:i'1 V
Karnataka can Cl8iIi"1"'–'_ xfi1€ a
Scheduled Caste or Sceh.ed'uled'.T1L'ribe'in the State of
Karnataka fo'rA..4_ajdmis_sio§ri. V1"to.._ the e . Zed respondent-
University?
ii) Whetliertttie 296 res-n’on’dent:_%llniirersity was right
init-gfnsing”adniission to the petitioner
thotugihlshe iseiefigéa Scheduled Caste as per
tttt ‘Vtti’e.:iPresi:tf1Ver1tia1 1950 in relation to
V’ Kama£a:i§%a—- ‘ ‘
iii} adrtiilssions of respondents–5 to 17 is
S ‘ liable”to_V be cancelled?
‘ l’xI’iieiqAnesti.ons presented in this writ petition are of Very
se’i’iou”.sV.nVati’i~re ‘hairing significant importance. So far as the
V S’ ‘question Whether students having benefit of Scheduled Caste
it Scheduled Tribe status in another State can claim the
sim_i1ar–=:status in another State to which they migrated, there
“if ‘am-two Constitution Bench judgments; (1) in 1990 (33 see 130
m2g_
(MARR1 CHANDRAS!-IEKAR RAO Vs. DEAN, SETH G.S.MEDICAL
COLLEGE 8: OTHERS}, {ii} in 1994 (5) SCC 244 (1-‘.”-.¢”17.I01V
COMMITTEE ON ISSUE or CASTE CERTIF?ICAfl’ii§_i’
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES _ if
or MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER Va” UNIOH
ANOTHER}. In the first of the judgrnentsi’ questio.n
for consideration was:
“Whether a;…candidatev–. ‘whose tfcastefi was
recognised as Scheduled’ Tri.’ae_irsj’the Constitution
{Scheduled Tnlbes) of Andhra
Pradesh claim the Tribe in the
State of for to the MBBS
course {tr} by the State of
“ffo1~ Bombay Municipal
Corj;>ora’tion?” if -~ ., 1 V d
17. As t’hei”aVnsw4er’._to~.vsaid question depended on the
.«-.unde:’s3i:andintg and”interpretation of the provisions contained
V’Tunde1′..Arti_cie of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court
hasAe1’abotaite1yVA’dea1t with the purport and effect of Articles
341, 1u’5{{i}°’vandfi29(2) of the Constitution of India. The fact that
” “Scheda_i1edV’Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some States have to
._.§’:’~’dffet the social disadvantages and did not have the facilities
” ..:ffo”r”deve1opmcnt and growth and it was therefore necessary, in
…._2J”v-+4
order to make them equal, in those areas where they suffered
such disadvantages, to have reservation and protection in their
favour is emphasized by the Apex Court. As the sociai
conditions of castes vary from State to State, the Coulrtahas
found that it was not appropriate to generalise any or,
Tribe as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe_for:”the or
the country. It is further observed thosegwho
State or area should ensure that tiriey-._make,.”_;w’ay”for
disadvantaged and disabled of th’at:”part of who it
suffered from disabilities in those’ The”Apex Court
determined the controversy case of Marri
Chandra”ShelIei:.ar’:’?2;ao “heldf at para–13 as under:
‘ that ‘for the purposes of this
Constitiitioni inVAftic.1e’«~.3}i’1” as Well as in Article 342 do
imply that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes so
‘tip¢Cifi€d W0iii£1.13_e__eI1titled to enjoy all the constitutional
V are enjoyable by all the citizens as such.
” right, e.g., it has been argued that right
C. “-to right to move from one part to another is
“~a right given to all —— to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and
to” VVn.bn–scheduled castes or tribes. But when a
it ‘ Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition
it migrating but when he migrates, he does not and
cannot carry any speciai rights or privileges attributed
to him or granted to him in the original State specified
3/
W22-
for that State or area or part thereof …. ‘ …. .. The
expression “in relation to that State” would become
nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the
rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
are carried forward. it will also be inconsistent w;th’_pth’§t.
whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. 1:11:
Praclesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduleu””i*r:.b’egn1ay’–_
require protection because a boy or a child w_ho’growsp in” ‘S
that area is inhibited or is at ct”.sadvantage., 2 ”
Maharashtra that caste ortlthat tribe ‘may :not._:be_”so_}
inhibited but other castes or ‘tribes might be.’ if-la or
a child goes to that,atmospherev–of”-Maharashtra…»as a
young boy or a child goesa*–..eoIn’pletely different
atmosphere of Maharashtra iifheiie or this
disadvantag€_:is.__notftherettiflrieirjhe cannot be said to
have that rese:rva_tio.n”wlrlich the children or
thevrvpeiople «belonging to any segment of
that Statextt<l;{3«._rr1a.y"sti£i…require that protection. After
all, lit has to «mind that the protection is
necessary forlthe7._disadvantaged castes or tribes of
'J3/Ial1arashtra.,as Well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of
'vr.}?radesh'; """ "Thus, balancing must be done as
S V' * betwfeen'those who need protection and those who need
'protecti.onf i.e., who belong to advantaged castes or
who do not. Treating the determination
tinder Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be
.. valid' for all over the country would be in negation to the
V. _ fiery purpose and scheme and language of Article 341
read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution.”
&.
M23__
18. Further, after referring to the Constituent Assembly
Debates and the Views of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar on this aspect in
para-21, the Apex Court has ruled in para–22 with referen_ce_to
the facts in the said case holding that the petitionerin _
case was not entitled to be admitted to the w.
the basis of Scheduled Tribe Cei%tifica.tcf’v linfthedi
Maharasthra. K S it C
19. Another Constitution of in
ACTION COMMITTEES czi§e.. look into
the matter as petitioners because the
State of Maharashtra– den’ied«. Tth’e”–ben§efits and privileges
available to and Scheduled Tribes specified
in relation’totlf1at Sto-rriembers of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled belbng.’ingh.to other States who had migrated
fi*orn”ethelri.States to VthevState of Maharashtra. Such benefits
and_pi’ivil’egesVh’w_er.e denied on the basis of certain Circulars
dlettersllgssued by the Government of India and
. ‘c.onseque_nti;al instructions issued by the State of Maharashtra
that members belonging to the Scheduled Castes
Scheduled Tribes specified in relation to any other State
_24_
shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by
the State of Maharashtra unless the person concerned is
shown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra
as on 10.08.1950 in the case of Scheduled Castesyyband
06.09.1950 in the case of Scheduled Tribes whieii’weeef’-:;ee’« _
dates on which the President first ‘»
Constitution (Scheduled Castes] :=.yOrd-erg}
Constitution (Scheduled mbes} ordergxisso.
therein, therefore, contended thatdenial ofvbenefitsi and the
privileges by the State was violative of the
Fundamental Rights conferred._oncitizens’ ny;vArticles 14, 15(1),
16(2) and”l*9 being contrary to the
letter and spirit and 342 of the Constitution.
Referring tolthe earlli.er’eCon;stitution Bench judgment in Marri
‘Chandra SShekIlia’r.Rqo.’s case. the Apex Court has observed
the_Vmi.ddl.e’of*paragraph– 15 as under:
~. interpretation that the Court must put
“on the-relevant constitutional provisions in regard
to’S_c1~heduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other
I Sbgacleward classes must be aimed at achieving the
objective of equality promised to all citizens by
the Preamble of our Constitution. At the same
.._ VIIVVVV
time it must also be realised that the language of
clause (1) of both the Articles 341 and 342 is
quite plain and unambiguous. It clearly states–‘”–.
that the President may specify the castes
tribes, as the case may be, in relation to.;”e’ac-h;_’ ;.
State or Union Territory for the purposesof.
Constitution. It must also be realised that
specifying the castes or tribes tinder “the 76′
two articles the Presideritis, in the case’ a
State, obliged to consult Gvoiiernor of
Therefore. when a. class.—-is”aspecified” by the
President. after Governor of State
A, it is difficult to ii’fr1i’cic§rsta?t1ci.i’V_~: how that
specification: in-ade that State” can
be treated».as5sp–ecification in relationlto any other
St:’5ttelllVWh?vé.se it theliresident has not
cori.sulted. this specification is not
on1ylinlrelation””t:o State whose Governor
haspbeen ._co’nsi,ilted but is “for the purposes of
.’Co_r1stitiitio~n”” meaning thereby the various
_p1’oyisions–. of the Constitution which deal with
V . Castes /Scheduled Tribes. The
C’ .__Constit”ti,tion Bench has, after referring to the
debates in the Constituent Assembly relating to
‘A ; ,.thes'”e articles, observed that while it is true that a
” person does not cease to belong to his caste/ tribe
by migration he has a better and more socially
free and liberal atmosphere and if sufficiently
M”
M26-
long time is spent in socially advanced areas, the
inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging’
to a socially disadvantageous community do n_ot~
truncate his growth and the natural talents..otlaii.’»:- :_.
individual gets full scope to biossom
Realising that these are problems_ ‘bof
adjustment it was observed that tl:’iey’mus_t’be’g so
balanced in the mosaic oi’ the country’s
that no section or comniunity should ill-icalooselll
detriment or disgcontentment. thle’~–.othEer
community.”
20. Further, the-iifkpex “added to what was
stated in Matri Chandra case by observing as
follows: …. V S S
we that,:_:c’onsiderations for specifying a
particular class for inclusion in the
list of”S_ched’ule’d lTt3astes/ Scheduled Tribes or
cla”sses.«i’n a given State would depend on
A {;r1e_}§.at1;fre. and extent of disadvantages and social
3 by that caste, tribe or class in that
S ‘ State may be totally non est in another State to
V vvhich “persons belonging thereto may migrate.
A. , Coirictidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing
* same nomenclature is specified in two States but
the considerations on the basis of which they have
been specified may be totally different. So also the
._2′”jM
degree of disadvantages of various elements which
constitute the input for specification may aisodbge
totally different. Therefore, merely because
caste is specified in State A as a
does not necessarily mean that if therebe–…anothge1’ it
caste bearing the same nomenclature
State the person belonging to”:.th<;l"fo'r1ner Awoulid
entitled to the rights; ,_privilege's
admissible to a member of S theScheduled*Caste_otVthe
' latter State "for the purposes'g'~of*this Co1v1sti.tution".
This is an aspect liasgto Sébefkiept in mind and
which was V very tl~ie"'l.:fmir1ds of the
Constitutiorianakeijs as the choice of
language 3.4i:fvv 342 of the
Constitutiointg, . . '
21. It “fro’rnTthe’ aforementioned ruling of the
Apex Court e\fen”‘if a mentioned in the Presidential
Orderin”1’espect”‘ofV_Vth’e State of Karnataka as Scheduled Caste
is also mentioried as such in the Presidential Order in respect
of another’ candidate belonging to that caste cannot
claim’~«beneiit.oi’ reservation in the State of Karnataka.
‘Vhnsiiver to the points raised in this writ petition could
been difficult in the light of the two judgments of the
“-.:iConstitution Bench of the Apex Court, but for the fact that
ii 28 _
considerable arguments are advanced by the learned Senior
counsel for the respondent–University Sri Udaya Holla placing
reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in
case and referring to the nature of the 2” _
University which is established with an object”to::*rnal§e’–Ait
national level institute of legal training, stulléiiesc and’-reseiarebni
The Zfld respondent–Universityf is a brai’11chil:l”‘b’oVf.:’_theBar
Council of India Trust. As can seen from preamble to
the National Law School;:’_of_ in-filial (Karnataka Act
No.22/ I986} earlier a Society’ by Law School of
India Society registered under ~ihe”‘provision:s of the Karnataka
Societies object among others to
establish}: niaintainf:’V’»a,nd a teaching and research
institute of higher 1e-arn:n’g.;fi law conceived the idea and it is
_._the Secietyx’ Whic_lfi_requested the State Government to
AV_esta’oli_s’n,the –l\ia;’tional Law School to enable it to carry out its
and”_”_v»fui*ic’tions and therefore the Karnataka State
.Legislature considered it necessary to encourage the
H ‘S Abesitablishrnent of such a national level institute and hence Act
was enacted to establish the Law School.
23.
__ _
Section 4 of the National Law School of India Act, 1986,
deals with the objects of the Law School which reads as under:
“4. The Objects of the School etc.– (1) The Objects_oi”._the
School shall be to advance and disseminate
knowledge of law and legal processes and.-A4″tl1eirg:V’role in ”
national development. to develop in the student .:and’~res.ea1’ch * V.
scholar a sense of responsibility to society Lhevvtielld of
law by developing skills in regard”-to :advocacy,_:’lcgalp.
legislation, law reforms and-.__the lilcento o:ig’a’niseV lec_tures,_
seminars, symposia and l’eoxr1ferences ._ to hprolinote legal
knowledge and to make law. iand”‘Jegal processes efiicient
instruments of socia-1,_devel-oprnent,~.._ ‘hold examination and
confer degree and other~i.lacaderriic and to do all
such things as are or conducive to the
attainment of or ‘any the objects ‘of”the School.
{2} it V’i’iie«Scl1ooi-..S’1*1a1l’ be open to all persons of either
sexl’-irreispecijvei ‘of_rac_el;”».creed, caste of class of all religions
and shall not be ‘la.virIu1 for the school to impose on any
jperson any-test whatsoever of religious belief or profession in
orcier to entitle h’i1nto be admitted thereto as a teacher or a
C ” -» _Vstu,dent«or’*to hold any office therein or to graduate thereat or
to to-“exercise any privilege thereof.”
C24. it
norninated as the Chancellor.
of the Act provides that a Judge nominated by
Society shall be the Chancellor of the School provided that
‘gives his consent the Chief Justice of India shall be
Section 8 deals with the
ii3QW
authorities of the School. The General Council, the Executive
Council and the Academic Council are the important bodies
and the General Council is the Chief Advisory Bodyfo’f_the
School, whereas the Executive Council is the Chief
Body of the School and the Academic Council islt-hie _
Body of the School having power” lof”conl;ro1.y tgerierai.
regulation for maintaining the standards
education and examination of “thei.vbSchool., ls.ui:g}’ec’t to other it
rules and regulations. can the lcmntplosition of
the current Members of I~ion’ble Chief
Justice of India’ the Cliainnan of the Bar
Council faind. “s-evera1″”other eminent personalities
includingsome’ Supreme Court and the Chief
Justice of .IKarnataka are the Members of the
_ ‘General Council: A’Sri,___§ldaya Holla points out that only the Law
f’:_VlViiniste1*._Aof __ Government of Karnataka, the Advocate
General Education Minister of Government of
_VKarna’tak’a’.apart from Secretary to Government of Karnataka,
lllfiepartment of Higher Education are the only persons who
l_j_.replresent the Karnataka Government and all others are drawn
if from different walks of life from all over the country,
_33_r,
particularly from the legal field and therefore the State control
over the National Law School is minimal. He, therefore,
justifies the reservation for Scheduled Caste
Tribe candidates across the country.
25. It is true, the nature and 7:cor;%_ipo’sitilon”‘ of
respondent – University amply'””ieInonvstratesl’l.: dis are’
national level institute. the by itself
will absolve it from follovvingpthe Order, 1950 in
the matter of extendingA…reservation Scheduled
Castes and can it extend
reservation helonging to Scheduled
Castes _ throughout the Country. It
cannot beldenied respondent — University is a
creature .. of the State The Karnataka Legislature has
‘C llestablishefd this University as a national level institute. It is
“al._.so_notl that there is no provision in the Act which
requires theCrespondent–Universities to extend the benefit of
reservati’on’i~for the purpose of admission to the law course.
it is admitted before this Court that the Governing
él/A
Body of the University has accepted the reservation policy for
-32″,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and has extended it to
ail candidates throughout the country. This has
practice right from the beginning. Only because
has established the 233 respondent–UniVersiiy_,pas,aiinatiunal_
level institute, it cannot be said thatin th’e’:na«tter
benefit of reservation, the Presidential Iflrder,
provisions of Article 341 of the Co–ns”t:£tution*–ea1’i.be iagjiored.
26. If an institution is as.vl’.an_’pi.nstttution of national
importance by the__Act of f’1r1St1tut10I1 falls
within the four of Iternés in Item Nos.62,
63, 64 & 653 then it will be the
to legislation in respect of
the sameldapndlifl makes the legislation and
provides for a reservation applicable to all the Scheduled
zjfsl’Castes;Sched’uled throughout the country, then such
an be acceptable by drawing analogies
applicablev. Central Institutions such as All India
I”-«._._’In.stitute” of; Medical Science, Military Academy at Dehradun
other Central Bodies. In the instant case, the 2″”
.__”‘respéondent-UniVersity is established by State law and it is not
m33i,
an institution established by the Central law or founded by the
Central Government. In that View of the matter, there can be
no escape from the mandatory requirement as felt out in
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India as held:
Apex Court in the two Constitution Bench judgmeiatlsi
Chandra Shekhar Rao and Actionhycorrtmitteé; ‘~ .i:g;vén is he ”
to be held that the State has inv’».;fac;”eestablishjed
respondent-University as a *na.t_iona1′-.. level f1’:nstitute.} the–_”
reservation for Scheduled and ‘Scheduled Tribe
candidates have to be as».ficr the Order, 1950 as
declared in relationto Q =
27. Learnedxl’ _Sri.Udaya Holla has placed
strong relliance 3’1 in Pushpa’s case to contend
that in-the abse.nce».7’of ‘provision in the law requiring the
“2-W3 ‘i’espti12dent–Uniyersity to confine status of Scheduled
l’C,as’tes’ Tribes only to the castes specified in the
Presidlentialltjiider, 1950 that is to say to the candidates
belonging to the State, there is no prohibition either under
15(4) or 16(4) to extend such reservations to the
“Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of different States.
_34_
28. In Pushpa’s case, the question that arose for
consideration was whether the selection and appointment
made of migrant Scheduled gaste candidates of
against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castieeandiidates ,
the post of Selection Grade Teachershin
Pondicherry was legal and valid? The—Central gAdmii1istratii’e”VVt
Tribunal (Madras Bench) had lsiiehe and V
appointment were illegal’ and p canlhe seen from
paragraph 6 of the judgment living’; the main
contentions urged”hy’ –the:_coun.sel’~appeaI§inVg for the appellants
before the Apeié: C’ourt’l3iV¢re–:jg’:\.,
(l}_:That1 _<;1e3cisions.'__rendered in Marri Chandra
lfiflekhar ;:'elied upon by the Tribunal
related vtoacase Where the migrant was from one
S " State toanother State (from Andhra Pradesh to
S' 3-Mafiarashtrallland it can have no application to a
3 A "vease'»viIli–ere the migration of a Scheduled Caste
from a State to an adjoining or
Contiguous Union Territory.
t(2}VV”i’hat the Government of India has. from time to
time. issued Circulars and Government Orders
clearly providing that migrant Scheduled Caste
persons were eligible for appointment on posts
m35__
reserved for Scheduled Caste persons in the
Union Territory of Pondicherry and in the
absence of any statutory enactment or ruies
made in exercise of powers conferred under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,_itiiesej
Circulars or Government Orders arc:4′:.”biVndiiig’t ”
upon the Government of POIJ1,ChC_herr_sT.:’.” ” =
(3) That right from inception, tram
Pondicherry had bx-§eii..__ foliowing
Whereunder migrant Scheduiedda persons
were held eiigiiile foriiiappvointinent o,n””1’eserved
posts which wastythe and uniform
policy of the Stateand therefore be heid
to begiilegai oij contrary:.”to’*i.an_v constitutionai
~ ‘ provisions: “fl; “–
In the baCk’g1~.oun–.d_ ofijpthteseeontentions, the Apex Court after
referringv to 241 of the Constitution of India
dealing’ I,inion”‘I’e’i*1ritoIies, has held in paragraphs 14, 15,
ii? o-f»_tiie’jridgment as under:
.514.’ effect of these provisions is also that the
jiidnunistrator (Lt Governor of Pondicherry} and his
pcounciii of Ministers act under the general contro} of and
are under an obiigation to comply with any patticuiar
direction issued by the President. Further, the
Administrator [Lt Governor of Ponciicherry) while acting
_ 36 _
under the scope of the authority given to him under
Article 239 of the Constitution would be the Central
Government.
15. The Central Government has issued several
orders and circulars extending the benefit of
candidates of other States in the matter of employment
the UT of Pondicherry which need to be .;.
letter was sent by the Joint Secretary, Goveriiment=.of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs, t_.o~~th_e Lt_”Goverriorx’o4f:
Pondicherry on 4~2w1974 and .’is”~-be~.inVg_
reproduced below: ……. ..
16. These documents sliogivtthat
Pondicherry has throughout beeirproceeding “on,the_loasis
that being a Unio1i..4_.'”1’eri’itor5§I,. a.llV._io’rders regarding
reservation for SC/ST ;-espemf of postsfiservices under
the Central Government”are”atjplicxable. Vjdosts/ services
under the Poni3’iVChge’rry’Advininistration as Well. Since all
SC/ST .can,didates’–4.vvhgic’i1yhave been recognised as such
under the”‘ordersVissu–.’_3d the President from time to time
irrespective of V-the State/ Union Territory, in relation to
. V vvhicl1’e”paert:’.cular castes or tribes have been recognised as
V * are eligible for reserved posts / services under the
be 2 x”C.entralu_”G_overr1mer1t, they are also eligible for reserved
posts;’serv’ices under the Pondicherry Administration.
Consequently, all SC /ST candidates from outside the UT
” * Poridicherry would also be eligible for posts reserved for
V’ -SC’/ST candidates in the Pondicherry Administration.
Therefore, right from the inception, this policy is being
consistently followed by the Pondicherry Administration
M37-
whereunder migrant SC/ST candidates are held to be
eligible for reserved posts in the Pondicherry
Administration.
17. We do not find anything inherently wrong ,or.»
any infraction of any constitutional provision in sticli.
policy. The principle enunciated in Morn’ ‘T
Shekhar Ran cannot have application here as
Pondicherry is not a State. As shown
Territory is administered by the .’
Administrator appointed by him. ln’the:conteX.tV
246, Union Territories are excliided from the -the”
expression “State” occurring clearly
explained by a Constitution Belnchl’in*”T._M.K.anVniyan Vs.
ITO. In New Delhi Municipal Clotérictil of Puryab the
majority has approved the:’1<atioV__tof:pT.i'l/I. and has
held that they-.[Alrii_on [Teri'it_o3riesAl"are_un'otj'$tates for the
purposdellvof Conhstiltiition {para 145}. The
Tribunal~ has. Vti:§§1egfore.Vl'e.lear1y"erred in applying the ratio
of Marti 'Cyhandrct Rao in setting aside the
selection and 'app¢.intmeht of migrant SC candidates."
3.«.pAaragraph–.’2’l”llof the judgment, the Apex Court
“tt:£é::;tng 341(1) & 342 (1) of the Constitution has
obseryed thatigalrticle 16(4) is not controlled by a Presidential
Order tested under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the
V’Coi1.stit1ution in the sense that reservation in the matter of
appointment on posts may be made in a State or Union
W 38 W
Territory only for such Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
which are mentioned in the Schedule appended to the
Presidential Order for that particular State or Union Territory.
However, without elaborating this aspect further With..reference
to the ratio laid down in the Constitution A
Marti Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action _-Co’:11lri§5.ttee’;.y the S”
Apex: Court confined its observation’ :1-if
paragraph–2l by holding as uns’ier:_p
“if a State or Union Teri’3,to1*y It a lfiprovision
whereunder the benefit of”reservatio1a.Qis extended only to
such Scheduled Castes’ ‘Tribes which are
recognised vsuclffini relation_ to’. State or Union
iiseicr:.:a’–.provisiori’lwould be perfectly valid.
However,lVltii.-zreil’would’-be no infraction of clause (4) of
Article if._a by virtue of its peculiar
p_osition=.be’ingV by the President as laid down in
..«}§lrticle 239″‘–extends the benefit of reservation even to
., ‘ Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who
llarefiafiotlrrieritioned in the Scheduled to the Presidential
for such Union Territory. The UT of
l.°i3ori-dicilleny having adopted a policy of the Central
_ Government whereunder all Scheduled Castes or
, ‘Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their State are eligible
S for posts which are reserved for SC/ST candidates, no
legal infirmity can be ascribed to such a policy and the
£7,
M39M
sarne cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of
59
law.
30. It is thus clear that in Pushpa’s case, the .[”Bench
Consisting of three Hon’b1e Judges of the Supreme«V.Court’f’i)ehi1e
categorically holding that Article 341(1) and :3.-mile»
the Constitution cannot come in the Way .of”‘l’et%1’ito1°ies
by virtue of its peculiar position»A:’«heir1é got/c.rrIed«.
President as laid down in from: theft’
benefit of reservation to mig:*ant- ‘Scheduled. Castes or
Scheduled Tribes has net”ex.ten_;iecl isle analogy to the
States. There wasfno oecaVsio’b; for\.,the Ape§r’VCourt in the said
judgmentto position as the question arose
was onlyhurith Gniorl Territory of Pondicherry
and not .reference._t’oe.:the State or States. Therefore, the
contention of “Udaya.Ho1la, learned Senior Counsel that in
spite of law laidclown in the cases of Marri Chandra Shekar
and2kctibrl_”_{2o’r}intittee, the Apex Court in Pushpa’s case has
V . clarified ‘t’he’p.osition by holding that if the State enacts a law
” reservation to all Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
_”I’rifb’esA’across the country, it is not affected by the provisions
“contained under Article 341{1} or Article 342(1), cannot be
fig
_41is
consisting of two learned Judges of the Apex Court in the said
decision has considered the following questions as can b.e”s.een
from paragraph– 18:
{1} Having regard to the decisions of this Cou_._rtt 1
Chandra Shekar Rao {supra} and ‘$t1;gg_n
{supra}, the specification of a”:.’pa-r_tic’t1la1*.
Tribe to be a Scheduled Caste
being in relation to that or U’nioii
whether a person onhis migraitiorriito anotherVState
would carry the sarne.s’tatta_s
(2) Whether in offthe V’oif.V”t’his Court in
Action izsrhere the similar
Caste haying been declared to
be State to which he
orig:,ina,E_Iy the State and/ or Union
Territcij to ‘h:as”‘.migrated would make any
difference» “the provisions contained in
_Aij:ioie 341 of’the___Constitution of India?
-View of the decisions of the ‘Constitution
it Court in State of Maharashtra vs.
i\4?iiIin’d 3: tors. [(2001) 1 sec 4] and E.V.Chinnaiah vs.
Vi_state’–‘nf AP. :31 ors. [(2005) 1 sec 394] extension of
noitification even to a migrant would amount to
modification and/or alteration of the notification
which is impermissible in law in View of clause {2} of
(5)
‘~32.
‘to’ 1~’fushpa’s case and also the decision in 2004
(1) sec’ 53o ‘v{C__EIiiXNDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ANOTHER vs.
_42s
Article 341 and clause [2] of Article 342 of the
Constitution of India’?
Whether having regard to the provisions contaiiied it
Articles 239 and 239AA of the Constitution he _1:re1a:ien”t r it
to Union Territory it is pennissibleé
Government to direct I’€Cruit’J:n€I;it,A.1I10″‘*–.t.1;1€! it
Territory Services treating. it to Cbgetbakin Ceritral
Civil Services in view of the-vd:e*cision.s of’
Chandigarh Administration Vf_su_p’ra] and .VSAA.l?A1.ifsh;;a
(supra)?
Whether the.v.ratio:.A’1aid:*dovvii Court in
Chandigarh Qirjininistraaén .”‘(su’fira}….:and S.PushQa
[supra] consideration the
binding ..ijri._:Cor1stitution Bench in ;\_/_I_i_1j_;1__d
(su}ira]_ (supra). and M.C.D. vs. Veena &
p_1_”_sg”{.(2’O.Oi] would constitute binding
precede11t_s’?». ._ A
p-a:ragraph;3’6″”of the judgment the Apex Court refers
é & OTHERS) and raises a question as under:
A it be said that Marri Chandra Shekar Rao does
not apply to Union Territory?’ and answers it saying ‘The
answer thereto, in our opinion, is a big emphatic ‘no’.”
16/
W43-
33. In paragraph-38, the Apex Court further points out
as under:
“38. If the principle applied in S.Pusl’a§Vaf”c:”.o.
{supra} is to be given a logical extension, it wi1.l leadlff
to an absurdity, that the Scheduled Castes-~Order”in
a State brought under the control ofthe Pre-s:ifde_i1.tVV”‘l’l
under Article 356 could be altered’.A_AbylC virtue–.of..
notification issued in pursuance ofArticle”v:l6′.{e4}–..eeof
the Constitution. Clause Article. jiiévl ofbithe
Constitution, as noticed hereir_ibef’or_e, cannot be
made applicable for the benefit of
reservation for Scheclultfd Scheduled
Tribes in 2;; “State or Union» Tei*1’itQI.’jf. who have
migratedtoC.f’Vano’ll:ie1<.:vState_ ohrmllnion Territory and
they are not .the."'rneinbersV..-of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes'.
[By virt’ue._._._of Article 341, the Presidential
_ CA under clause (1) thereof acquire an
But for Articles 341 and 342 of
Consititlution, it would have been possible for
thehtlnion and the States, to legislate upon, or
.. frarnerfiolicies. concerning the subject of reservation,
r\_3’is}’a~vis inclusion of Castes/Tribes. The presence of
lfArticles 338. 338A, 341, 342 in the Constitution
clearly preclude that.”
W44-
34. The Apex Court has gone on to observe in
paragraph–/~10 as under:
“Both the Central Government and
Government indisputably maymlay dovvn”‘
decision in regard to reservationihaving iggn’-d..
Articles 15 and 16 of the Consdtitution of. it
such a policy cannot violate oth’cr__
provisions. A policy cannof~..gave_ ‘over the
constitutional _
_ If for the purposes v?_;..4ll1~.and 342 of
the Constitution the Union
Territory par: on the ‘of: ad rninsitrative
ex1’gibi=i1i’tyV_V..”‘–o:r”” the administrative
pQwer,_lt.he :’consti.tntionlal—–v.int’erdict contained in
clause or-clause (2) of Article 342
of the Constitutionvéofyiliidia cannot be got rid of.”
furtiier goes”on”to observe in paragraph–4i that ‘any
po’licy decision. thus, must satisfy the
constitutionalffrefquirements laid down under Articles 341 and
342 of’ theponstitution of India. If any other construction is
policy decision having regard to the decisions of this
vvill have to be treated as a proviso appended to clause
of Article 341 of the Constitution of India and would
“.46..
Court in a large number of decisions including
Three Judge Bench decisions. Pushpa, “thereforefv
could not have ignored either Marri
Shekhar Rao or other decisions following ‘V’
only on the basis of an adrninistrative…,c_ii=cular _
issued or otherwise and n1ore”‘s.og_
Constitutional scheme as containedliii”clause 7 A
Articles 341 and 342 of .t;he__ Constitutions.’ovTi§ri§1gia
putting the State and Union.
bracket.
Following Dayllangand vtlilerefore, we
are of the opinion that in is an
obiter and lay ratio.”
37. Sri Udaya S:enior:§Counse1 however placing
certain auth_o1*itiesVbevfore’ has contended that even if
the observations case are to be considered
as obiter as deo.lared the Apex Court, the obiter is also
‘binding den” this’ already stated above, the question
“that._gr¢i11 ‘co’n.si1deration in Pushpcrs case is the binding
nature of i’..–Clentra1 Government direction followed by the
C”-‘..__Union ‘I’eVifi?:tory of Pondicherry in extending the status of
Caste and Scheduled Tribe to candidates belonging
the States outside Pondicherry located contiguous to
M48″
and circumstances of the present case, the 2″” respondent-
University could not have extended reservation 3 litori._the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of _
ignoring the Presidential Order, 1950 declarin.g_c:ertai-n castes–«..
as Scheduled Castes and Scheduledflfihes
of Karnataka.
39. This will now take us to tolfiwhat will
be the effect of this ordenan already made.
Respondents-5 to havleheieii.aldtrlitteei they belonged
to Scheduled ‘other only after their
admission, filed. After filing the
present 0’ apgalicaflon is filed seeking
amendmer;«tJlo’f fietitiorfchallenging their selection and
admission as l”Well.t Neariyltiisio months have lapsed since the
l’admissio11A—sis mnadeo” Asrightly contended by Sri Aditya Sondhi
Slearned appearing for some of the students, the fact
that’adlmis_silons}of these respondents were made pursuant to
‘policies followed since long and that there Was absolutely no
rifiisreoresentation on their part in this regard and further that
have been so selected based on their merit, cannot be
liglnored. Since 07.07.2009 these respondents have been
-50,”
also in the University, it is open for it to take recourse to the
same. At this stage, it is necessary to observe that the
petitioner has approached this Court before the
completed. In fact, the petitioner had sought
order and this Court did not grantnanp in_terirn’iiliorderfonly
because the 2%’ respondent–Univers’ity
Court at the time of prelirninary hearing_pthat’:._;Vadmission
process which was otherwise oper1i’even_p on th’e–.s_a1pg17 date was
reportedly advanced and lcoxmplete-ii} } it
40. In .the resuit.?_l3oth::_the appli.cati_ons__p:tjiled for amendment
and impleadingCla;re”ailo\Iveds’;’.– , A’l:l””e.ti:tior1VerV«to file amended copy of
Memorandunirof.Writ«.Pet.iti’on forthwith. This Writ Petition is
allowed in’p_a1′”t,
{a} _ Ituist-.ord’eredV’th.at the 2?” respondent–National Law
3choolll’of””lVndia University cannot extend the
v’yst.at’us of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe to
it “*4:l’cVan.didates hailing from other States or areas
the Constitution (Presidentiail Order,
1950 issued in relation to the State of Karnataka;
‘C(13) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to admit the
daughter of the petitioner to the five year Law