APURVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition raises a vital issue relating to 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in Central Educational Institutions, introduced by the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. The question which falls for consideration is of the eligibility for admission under such reservation. The respondents Union of India (UOI) and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) have taken a stand that for an OBC candidate to be eligible for admission in the 27% reserved seats, he / she must secure marks within the bandwidth of 10% lower than the marks of the last candidate admitted in the General (Unreserved) category i.e. even if the eligibility for admission in the General (Unreserved) category is of 50% marks in the qualifying examination and for Reserved category is say 40%, but the last candidate admitted in the General (Unreserved) category has 90% marks, the OBC candidates even if meeting the eligibility criteria of above 40% marks, are not entitled to admission unless they secure above 80% marks. If any of the OBC candidates fail to secure above 80% marks, the extra seats added to the Institution pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Act would be available to the General (Unreserved) category students. For contending so, reliance is placed on Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India, 2008 6 SCC 1. The petitioners belonging to the OBC category contend otherwise. They say that their admission to the seats reserved for them cannot be made dependent on the marks of the last candidate admitted in the General (Unreserved) category.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the present petition is as under:-

(3.) The question being of general importance, notice of the petition was issued. Since the petitioners were seeking the relief of admission in the current academic year, the matter was taken up for hearing after a short adjournment. The counsel for the respondent no.2 JNU stated that no counter affidavit would be necessary, though post hearing has filed a synopsis of submissions. The respondent no.1 UOI inspite of the general importance of the issue involved chose not to file the counter affidavit and the counsel for the respondent no. 1 UOI during the hearing only handed over in the Court a communication of the Director (HE), Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development of Government of India. However, the contentions of the counsel for the respondent no.1 UOI and the respondent no.2 JNU were recorded in open Court to obviate any misunderstanding.