Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court observed that no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to give for reservation.
“No mandamus (judicial writ) can be issued by the court directing the state government to provide for reservation. Power lies with the State to make a provision but, at the same time, courts can not issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily make such a provision,” said a bench of justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna while referring to a series of Supreme Court judgments.
In this case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed writ solicitations and directed the State to issue a advertisement furnishing for 1% reservation/ share for children/ grand children of terrorist affected persons/ Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non- Medical/ Dental institutions in the State of Punjab. The court further directed that the said reservation/ share shall apply to operation share seats as well. It further directed that the fresh advertisement shall also give for a sports share of 3% in Government Medical/ Dental Colleges. The State of Punjab challenged this judgment before the Apex Court.
The issue considered by the Apex Court bench was whether the State Government's action taking a policy decision to define a particular chance of reservation/ share for a particular order of persons, can be intruded with by allocation of a writ of mandamus, directing the State Government to give for a particular chance of reservation for a particular order of persons other than what has been handed in the policy decision taken by the State Government. The bench took a cue from a batch of four judgments between 2010 and 2020 in which the Supreme Court ruled that it's for the state to take a call on furnishing for reservation for different classes grounded on colorful factors and that there can not be any direction by a court for consecrating share benefits for any particular class of citizens.
The following judgments on this aspect (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).
The court noted that the above judgments have held that no mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to give for reservation.
"It was further observed that indeed no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to give for reservation. It was observed that indeed if the under-representation of Slated Castes and Slated Lines in public services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State Government to give for reservation.", the bench noted.
Thus, while allowing the appeal, the court observed that applying the law laid down by this Court in the forenamed opinions to the data of the case on hand, we're of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the State Government to give for 3% reservation/ share for sports persons, rather of 1% as handed by the State Government.
A conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to give for 1% reservation/ share for sports persons. A specific order dated 25.07.2019 was also issued by the State Government. Thus, the High Court has exceeded its governance while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to give a particular chance of reservation for sports persons, videlicet, in the present case, 3% reservation rather of 1% handed by the State Government, while exercising powers under Composition 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court in so far as directing the State to give for 3% reservation for sports persons and/ or give for a sports share of 3% in the Government Medical/ Dental Colleges is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set down.
86540
103860
630
114
59824