RAJNEESH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this matter came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the parties pointed out to us that in an identical matter arising from Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court is seized of the issues involved in this case, viz whether it is constitutionally permissible to exceed the limit of 50% in so far as reservations are concerned. It has been pointed out to us that the identical matter pending consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is in an 'Appeal arising out of SLP No. 13526 of 1993; Voice (Consumer Care Council) v. State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the fact that the issues involved herein are pending adjudication before the Apex Court, it was suggested by the learned counsel appearing for all the parties that we should defer the hearing in this case and await the judgment of the Supreme Court. We found ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid proposal as made by the learned counsel for all the parties.

(2.) IN so far as the question relating to evolving an interim arrangement in the meanwhile is concerned, a suggestion was mooted from the Court to the learned counsel appearing for all the parties that pending the pronouncement of the judgment by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter, the State be permitted to process, undertake, and complete the appointments to be made in future but subject to the condition that instead of having 73% reservations (as impugned in this petition) 50% of the appointments may be made from out of the reserved categories, and 27% of such appointments should be made from out of the candidates belonging to the General (Open) Category. The appointments thus to be made in the said 50% categories (as would now correspondingly stand reduced from 73% to 50%) shall be on proportionate basis, with due reference and regard being had to the percentage of the categories as constituted the sum -total of the original impugned 73%.

(3.) ACTUALLY the orders offering appointments to the persons in the aforesaid 23% Category, should clearly state that the appointments offered are Adhoc/Provisional and that these would be dependent on the result of this petition.