ASHOK PANDEY ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Order/Letter No. 1807/ 151094-15 (18/94) Shiksha Anubhag-10, Lucknow, dated 10/05/1994 contained in Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition and any other Government Order or Notification providing thereby reservation of seats in the Universities in favour of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes.

(2.) The petitioner who appeared in person assailed the validity of the impugned Government Order on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It was also urged that the reservation provided for by means of the impugned G.O. in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes exceeded 50% and that being so the G.O. was contrary to the law declared by Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 (6) JT (SC) 273 (Mandal Commission Case).

(3.) Having heard the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel we are of the view that petitioner's aforestated submissions are misconceived. Reservation policy of the State Government as embodied in the impugned Executive Order/ G. O. which stands replaced by a statutory order; the Uttar Pradesh State Universities (Reservation in Admission for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Order, 1994 (in short the Reservation Order, 1994) issued under Section 28(5) of the State Universities Act is, in our opinion, well sanctioned by Article 15(4) of the Constitution and is well in tune with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney (supra). True, reservation contemplated in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution should not exceed 50%, but "some relaxation in this strict Rule may become imperative" under certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people as observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 881 of the report 1992 (6) JT (SC) 273 at page 670. However, the question of relaxation to the said Rule does not arise in the instant case inasmuch as reservation of seats in any course of study in a University in favour of S.C./S.T./O.B.C as stipulated and comprehended by the Reservation Order, 1994 does not exceed 50%. The impugned G.O. as also clause 2 of the Reservation Order, 1994 provide for reservation of seats in any course of study in University in favour of S.C. to the extent of 21%, in favour of S.T. to the extent of 2% and in favour of O.B.C. to the extent of 27%, total of which comes out to be 50%. Thus it is evident that the impugned G.O. and the Reservation Order, 1994 do not exceed the maximum limit of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution fixed by the Supreme Court as a matter of General Rule.