caselaws
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Punjab vs Anshika Goyal on 25 January, 2022Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2022
The State of Punjab …Appellant
Versus
Anshika Goyal and others …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 319-320 OF 2022
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 26.07.2019 and 08.08.2019 passed by the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.17248/2019
and CWP No. 18989 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the
Signature Not Verified
said writ petitions and has directed the State to issue a fresh notification
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.01.25
16:45:10 IST
Reason:
providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist
1
affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-
minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab and further
directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management
quota seats as well and further directed that the fresh notification shall
also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental
Colleges, the State of Punjab has preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:
The State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Private Health Sciences
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and
making of Reservation) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006
Act’) 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 2006 Act provides for reservation of
seats and as per the said Section, all private health sciences educational
institutions shall reserve seats 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 in the
official gazette from time to time.
2.1 The State of Punjab framed its Sports Policy in the year 2018
which provided that 3% reservation in admissions will be provided for
2
graded sports persons. Clause 10 of the said policy also provided that
the said Sports Policy shall prevail on all the Departments and
Organizations of Government of Punjab, however, if any other
department wishes to have specific policy, it will be finalised in
consultation with the Department of Sports. It appears that by order
dated 25.07.2019, a conscious decision was taken by the Government
of Punjab to provide 1% reservation for sports persons. The said order
was passed taking into consideration Clause 10 of the Sporty Policy,
2018.
2.2 For the academic year 2018-19, the State Government issued
notification dated 6.2.2018 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. However, it appears that though 1% seats were reserved for
sports persons and the children/grand children of terrorist affected
persons so far as the State quota seats in Government Institutions are
concerned, similar reservation was not provided for admission to private
institutes even with respect to government quota seats in the private
institutes.
2.3 A bunch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court for
quashing Clause 17 of notification dated 6.2.2018 to the extent of not
3
providing the reservation for sports persons and children/grand children
of terrorist affected persons in the private institutes which as such were
provided for the State quota seats in government institutions.
2.4 By judgment and order dated 23.08.2018, the High Court allowed
the said writ petitions partially and declared that reservation that is
applicable to Government institutes shall extend to the private institutes
as well. The judgment and order passed by the High Court in the case of
Bani Suri and others was challenged before this Court by way of a
special leave petition (civil) no.28491/2018 and this Court vide order
dated 12.11.2018 dismissed the said special leave petition by
specifically observing that the order passed by the High Court shall not
be treated as a precedent in any other case.
2.5 Subsequently, for the academic year 2019-20, the State
Government issued a notification dated 6.6.2019, which subsequently
came to be modified vide corrigendum dated 11.07.2019. 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
4
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.
2.6 A bunch of writ petitions came to be filed before the High Court for
the academic year 2019-20 challenging the notification for (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.
5
(d) Implementation of the 10% quota for economically
weaker sections and the calculation thereof by the State of
Punjab is upheld.
2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court in issuing the aforesaid
directions, more particularly directing the State to issue a fresh
notification providing for reservation/quota for sports persons,
children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected
persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental Institutions in
the State and directing to provide for a sports quota of 3% (instead of 1%
as fixed by the State Government) in Government Medical/Dental
Colleges, the State has preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the State of Punjab and Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners.
3.1 Number of submissions have been made by Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State on the High
Court issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide for
reservation/quota for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist
affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private unaided non-
minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State.
6
3.2 It is vehemently submitted that no writ of mandamus can be issued
by the High Court directing the State to provide for reservation for the
particular class or category and it should be left to the wisdom of the
State Government. It is also the case on behalf of the State that Article
15(5) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision and it is
ultimately for the State to provide for reservation 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 a particular class or category. In support of her submission, learned
senior counsel has heavily relied upon the following decisions of this
Court:
(i) Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana
and others, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 477 (para 27);
(ii) Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India
and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare
Association and others, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 308 (para
26);
(iii) Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 113 (para 49); and
(iv) Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and
others, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 1 (paras 18 & 19)
3.3 Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the State of Punjab has further submitted that even a writ of
mandamus issued by the High Court directing the State to provide 3%
reservation/quota for sports persons is also unsustainable. It is
7
submitted that a conscious policy decision was taken by the State
Government to provide only 1% reservation/quota for sports persons. It
is submitted that it is ultimately for the State Government considering the
facts situation in the State to provide the reservation/quota and what
percentage of reservation/quota should be there should be left to the
concerned State Government. In support of her above submission, she
has also relied upon the aforesaid decisions.
4. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the original writ petitioners has submitted that the notification under
challenge before the High Court was for academic year 2019-20 and
pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, admissions have
been given implementing the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court, except providing reservation to the extent of 3% for
sports persons.
4.1 It is further submitted that thereafter a fresh notification has been
issued for the academic year 2021-22 in which the State has provided
the reservation for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist
affected persons and Sikh riot affected persons to an extent of 1% each
with respect to the private institutes also. It is therefore submitted that as
such the issue in the present case has become academic. Therefore, it
is prayed to dispose of the appeals by keeping the question of law open.
8
4.2 Now so far as the direction issued by the High Court directing the
State to provide 3% reservation/quota for sports persons in Government
Medical/Dental Colleges is concerned, Mr. Patwalia, learned Senior
Counsel has tried to support the same by submitting that when Sports
Policy, 2018 provided for 3% reservation for sports persons in
admissions in all government and private higher educational institutions
and universities including those of medical and technical education,
located in the State of Punjab, there was no reason for the State to
deviate from the same and provide for only 1% reservation/quota for
sports persons. It is therefore submitted that the High Court has rightly
directed to provide 3% reservation /quota for sports persons considering
the Sports Policy, 2018.
5. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the respective
parties at length.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has directed
to provide for reservation/quota to sports persons, children/grand
children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons for
admissions in the private institutes and more particularly the
management quota in the private institutes. The High Court has also
further directed to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sports persons in
all Government Medical/Dental Colleges.
9
6. Now so far as the directions issued by the High Court directing to
provide for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist
affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons and sports persons in all
private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State is
concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the said issue has
become academic, firstly on the ground that the issue before the High
Court and even before this Court was/is for the academic year 2019-20.
Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, admissions for the
academic year 2019-20 are already given as per the judgment of the
High Court except providing 3% reservation/quota for sports persons and
applying 1% reservation. This Court, vide order dated 27.08.2019,
passed the following interim order:
“Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General appearing on behalf
of the petitioners as well as Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. Issue fresh notice to the
unrepresented/unserved respondents. After hearing the matters at some
length, we deem it appropriate to have final hearing in the matter as main
question arises with regard to validity of classification made as to
Government seats and institutions seats for the purpose of reservation in
question. Fact remains other reservations have been applied to all seats in
private institutions. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and considering the decisions in “T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors.
Versus State of Karnataka & Ors.”, (2002)8 SCC 481 and “Gulshan
Prakash (DR.) & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Ors.”, (2010) 1 SCC 477,
without expressing any opinion on merits, we are of the view that there
shall not be a blanket stay on the order passed by the High Court.
However, the High Court has enhanced the sports quota from 1% to 3%.
That cannot be said to be appropriate as the Government has notified only
1% sports quota on horizontal business. The part of the impugned order
with respect to enhancing quota from 1% to 3% shall remain stayed till the
final decision by this Court. With respect to remaining part there shall be
no stay. 3 Counseling to take place by 7th September, 2019. Only 1%
10
reservation be implemented with respect to sports quota. Counseling be
held as per order passed by the High Court with other aspects.”
6.1 Secondly, the State has now already provided the
reservation/quota for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist
affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons even with respect to
admissions in the private institutes for the academic year 2021-22.
Therefore, the first issue, whether the High Court was right in issuing
directions directing the State 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 including the
management quota seats has become academic and therefore we
dispose of the present appeals keeping the question of law open. As the
admissions are given for the academic year 2019-20 pursuant to the
interim order passed by this Court, we direct that the said admission shall
not be disturbed/affected. However, it is observed that we have not
entered into and/or considered any other dispute including whether the
admissions are made on the basis of merit or not. If anybody has any
individual grievance, in that case, it will be open for the aggrieved person
to take recourse to law.
7. Now so far as the directions issued by the High Court directing the
State to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sports persons, instead of
11
1% provided by the State is concerned, it appears from the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court that it has issued the said
direction considering the Sports Policy, 2018. It is true that as per clause
8.11(v), 3% reservation for sports persons has been provided. However,
it is to be noted that clause 10 permits/allows any other department to
have specific policy providing for reservation for sports persons other
than 3%. As observed hereinabove, thereafter the State Government
has issued an order dated 25.07.2019 providing for 1% reservation/quota
for sports persons. The said order has been issued and 1%
reservation/quota for sports persons is provided after taking into
consideration the Sports Policy, 2018. Therefore, a conscious policy
decision has been taken by the State Government to provide for only 1%
reservation/quota for sports persons. Therefore, the question posed for
the consideration of this Court is, 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.
12
8. While answering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of this Court
referred to hereinabove are required to be discussed.
a) In the case of Gulshan Prakash (supra), it was observed by
this Court that there cannot be any mandamus by the Court to
provide for a reservation for a particular community. In the case
before this Court, the State of Haryana did not provide any
reservation for SC/ST/backward community at the postgraduate
level. A conscious decision was taken by the State of Haryana not
to provide for reservation at the postgraduate level. The same was
challenged and to that this Court has observed that there cannot be
any mandamus by the Court as claimed. In the aforesaid decision, it
was further 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. At
this stage, it is to be noted that it was also submitted before this
Court that since the Government has decided to grant reservation
for SC/ST/backward class communities in admission at MBBS level,
13
i.e., undergraduate level and therefore the State has to provide for
reservation at postgraduate level also. To that, this Court observed
that since the Government had decided to grant reservation for
SC/ST/backward categories in admission at MBBS level, i.e.,
undergraduate level, it does not mean that it is bound to grant
reservation at the postgraduate level also.
b) In the case of Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare
Association and others (supra), while considering the issue of
providing reservation in favour of SC/ST category persons in the
promotion and when Articles 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India
were pressed into service, this Court observed and held that though
Articles 15 & 16 empower the State to take an affirmative action in
favour of the SC/ST category persons by making reservations for
them in the employment of the Union or the State, they are only
enabling provisions which permit the State to make provision for
reservation of these category of persons. It was further observed
that insofar as making of provisions for reservation in matters of
promotion to any class/classes of post is concerned, such a
provision can be made in favour of SC/ST category employees if in
the opinion of the State they are not adequately represented in
services under the State. It is observed that therefore power lies
14
with the State to make a provision but, at the same time, Courts
cannot issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily make such
a provision. In paragraph 26, it was observed and held as under:
“26. In the first instance, we make it clear that there is no dispute about
the constitutional position envisaged in Articles 15 and 16, insofar as
these provisions empower the State to take affirmative action in favour
of SC/ST category persons by making reservations for them in the
employment in the Union or the State (or for that matter, public
sector/authorities which are treated as State under Article 12 of the
Constitution). The laudable objective underlying these provisions is also
to be kept in mind while undertaking any exercise pertaining to the
issues touching upon the reservation of such SC/ST employees.
Further, such a reservation can not only be made at the entry level but
is permissible in the matters of promotions as well. At the same time, it
is also to be borne in mind that clauses (4) and (4-A) of Article 16 of the
Constitution are only the enabling provisions which permit the State to
make provision for reservation of these category of persons. Insofar as
making of provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to any class
or classes of post is concerned, such a provision can be made in favour
of SC/ST category employees if, in the opinion of the State, they are not
adequately represented in services under the State. Thus, no doubt,
power lies with the State to make a provision, but, at the same time,
courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily make
such a provision. It is for the State to act, in a given situation, and to
take such an affirmative action. Of course, whenever there exists such a
provision for reservation in the matters of recruitment or the promotion,
it would bestow an enforceable right in favour of persons belonging to
SC/ST category and on failure on the part of any authority to reserve
the posts, while making selections/promotions, the beneficiaries of
these provisions can approach the Court to get their rights enforced.
What is to be highlighted is that existence of provision for reservation in
the matter of selection or promotion, as the case may be, is the sine
qua non for seeking mandamus as it is only when such a provision is
made by the State, a right shall accrue in favour of SC/ST candidates
and not otherwise.”
c) In the case of Suresh Chand Gautam (supra), writ petitions were
preferred before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a direction in the nature of a mandamus
15
commanding the State/States to enforce appropriately the
constitutional mandate as contained under the provisions of Article
16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 of the Constitution , or in the alternative,
directing the respondents to constitute a committee or appoint a
commission chaired either by a retired Judge of the High Court or
Supreme Court in making survey and collecting necessary
qualitative data of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
in the services of the State for granting reservation in promotion in
the light of direction given by this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of
India, (2006) 8 SCC 212. Refusing to grant such reliefs in exercise
of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and after
referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Census Commr.
Vs. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796, this Court has observed
that no writ of mandamus of such a nature can be issued. While
refusing to issue a writ of mandamus of such a nature, in paragraph
49, it was observed and held as under:
“49. Recently in Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy [Census
Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S)
589] a three-Judge Bench while dealing with the correctness of the
judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court had directed that the
Census Department of the Government of India shall take such measures
towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country at the earliest
and in a time-bound manner, so as to achieve the goal of social justice in
its true sense, which is the need of the hour, the court analysing the
context opined thus: (SCC p. 806, para 25)
“25. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to
frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. The Act
16
has conferred power on the Central Government to issue notification
regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and
the Central Government has issued notifications, and the competent
authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of the court
to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and, in such
interpretation, certain creative process is involved. The courts have
the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where
it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres
applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But the
courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to
the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.”
We have referred to the said authority in Census Commr. case [Census
Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589]
as the Court has clearly held that it neither legislates nor does it issue a
mandamus to legislate. The relief in the present case, when appositely
appreciated, tantamounts to a prayer for issue of a mandamus to take a step
towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. In our
considered opinion, a writ of mandamus of such a nature cannot be issued.”
d) In the recent decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar and
another (supra), again it is reiterated by this Court that no
mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State
Government to provide for reservation. It was further observed that
even no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to
collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for
reservation. It was observed that even if the under-representation of
Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought
to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court
to the State Government to provide for reservation. While holding
so, in paragraph 18, it was observed and held as under:
17
“18. The direction that was issued to the State Government to collect
quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or inadequacy of
representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in government services is the subject-matter of challenge in some
appeals before us. In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no
doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There
is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation
in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the
State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the
judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1] , Ajit Singh
(2) [Ajit Singh (2) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S)
1239] , M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] and Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi
Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] that Articles
16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable
data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing
reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State
Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of
appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Articles 16(4) and
16(4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the
inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, as noted above, is a prerequisite for providing
reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not
to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in
promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of
quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State
services. Even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court,
no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to
provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A.
Rajendran [C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721 : AIR 1968
SC 507] and Suresh Chand Gautam [Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of
U.P., (2016) 11 SCC 113 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 291] . Therefore, the
direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first
collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government services on the
basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or
not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by
this Court and is accordingly set aside. Yet another direction given by the
High Court in its judgment dated 15-7-2019 [Vinod Kumar v. State of
Uttarakhand, WP (S/B) No. 291 of 2019, decided on 15-7-2019 (Utt)] ,
directing that all future vacancies that are to be filled up by promotion in
the posts of Assistant Engineer, should only be from the members of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, is wholly unjustifiable and is
hence set aside.”
18
9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions
to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High
Court has committed a grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus and
directing the State Government to provide for 3% reservation/quota for
sports persons, instead of 1% as provided by the State Government. A
conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to provide
for 1% reservation/quota for sports persons. A specific order dated
25.07.2019 was also issued by the State Government. Therefore, the
High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of
mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of
reservation for sports persons, namely, in the present case, 3%
reservation instead of 1% provided by the State Government, while
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the
High Court insofar as directing the State to provide for 3% reservation for
sports persons and/or provide for a sports quota of 3% in the
Government Medical/Dental Colleges is unsustainable and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the first
direction issued by the High Court directing the State to issue a fresh
notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children
19
of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private
unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab is
concerned, the present appeals are disposed of as the said issue has
become academic for the reasons stated hereinabove, However, the
question of law, whether such a direction/writ of mandamus could have
been issued is kept open.
10.1 So far as the second direction issued by the High Court directing to
provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges
in the State of Punjab is concerned, the same is hereby quashed and set
aside by observing that no writ of mandamus could have been issued by
the High Court.
10.2 All impleadment/intervention applications stand disposed of in
terms of the aforesaid judgment and order. However, if any individual
person has a grievance, he/she may take recourse to law for his/her
grievance.
11. The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
JANUARY 25, 2022 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
20
Comments