RAJESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LPA No.237 of 2003 is filed by the State. LPA No. 176 of 2003 is filed by an 2Intervener 0/5/2014 Page in 22 the writ petition, with the leave of the Court WP (C) No. 1359 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner therein claiming to be aggrieved by the modified order or direction issued by the State. That writ petition, when it came up before a Learned Single Judge who had rendered the decision under appeal, was referred to the Division Bench in view of the pendency of the appeal by the State.

(2.) THE subject matter of the dispute is the reservation for admission to professional colleges in the State. The State of Jharkhand proposed 73 percent reservation for the Schedule Castes, Schedules Tribes, Extremely Backward classes and the Backward Classes put together. The same was challenged before this Court in various writ petition. The matters were referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench of 5 Judges, took up the matter for hearing. It was then brought to their Lordships' notice that the question to be decided was pending decision in the Supreme Court in Voice (Consumer Care Council) v. State of Tamil Nadu. It was submitted that the question whether the State could make reservation exceeding fifty percent was the question that was involved in that proceeding pending before the Supreme Court and that was the question that had to be decided by this Court in the case before it. The Full Bench thereupon adjourned the proceedings to await the decision of the Supreme Court. But the Full Bench thought that an interim direction was necessary, especially in the context of the ration of the decision in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. The Full Bench therefore directed that only 50% of the appointments may be made from the reserved categories and the balance 23 percent out of 73% may be provisionally made on the basis of merit. The Court also directed that the appointments to be made in the 50% reserved categories should be on proportionate basis with due reference and regard being had to the percentage of the categories as constituting the sum total of the original impugned 73%. We may notice that at that stage, reservation to the respective categories was as follows : - -

(3.) WRIT petitions were filed challenging the action of the State In taking away the separate reservation for the Extremely Backward Categories and Backward Categories and providing for 14% reservation for other Backward Categories, including both Extremely Backward and Backward Categories. The challenge was by those who claimed to belong to Extremely Backward Categories and their contention was that the clubbing together of the Extremely Backward Categories and the Backward Categories would act to their prejudice and that the clubbing together was against the interim direction issued by the Full Bench. They argued that the percentage had to be reduced, but a separate percentage had to be assigned to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Extremely Backward Categories and the Backward Categories, as was done earlier. The State met this argument by contending that it was for the State to decide upon the quota of reservation and that there was nothing in the interim order of the Full Bench which restrained it from bringing within the fold of other Backward Categoriee both Extremely Backward and Backward Categories. It was submitted that it was a matter of policy, and the Government had fixed the quota fairly, and going by the modified interim order of the Full Bench, it was enabled to fix appropriate percentage of quotas with respect to each individual class and category as "it may objectively and fairly decide constituting the sum total of 50%". In its wisdom, the Government had decided that reservations must be made applicable to the classes of other Backward Categories and that the same should take in both the Backward and the Extremely backward Categories.