Full Judgment Text
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34681 of 2017]
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR
SINGH AND ANR. ….. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Hima Kohli, J.
Leave granted.
st
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21 August,
2017 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Petition (C) No.
753 of 2014 whereunder, amongst others, it has been held that after the
amendment of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
1
Admission) Act, 2006 , in the year 2012, on introduction of the Central
2
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012 ,
3
respondent No. 1 - Manipur University is required to follow the reservation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2022.01.05
16:57:15 IST
Reason:
norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste [SC], 31%
1 For short “the Reservation Act”
2 For short ‘the Amendment Act”
3 ‘University’
Page 1 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the Other Backward Classes
[OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.
2. To contextualize the issue raised in the present appeal, it is necessary
to briefly refer to the relevant facts of the case. Respondent no. 1-
University was initially established as a ‘State University’ under the Manipur
th
University Act, 1980 that came into force on 05 June, 1980. In the year
2005, the Manipur University Act was legislated, whereafter respondent No.
1 – University was converted from a ‘State University’ to a ‘Central
th th
University’ w.e.f. 13 October, 2005. On 04 January, 2007, the
Reservation Act was notified. Section 3 of the said Act prescribed
reservation of seats in the Central Educational Institutions and laid down as
follows:
“3. Reservation of seats in Central Educational Institutions. –
The reservation of seats in admission and its extent in a Central
Educational Institution shall be provided in the following manner, namely:-
i out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or
faculty, fifteen per cent. seats shall be reserved for the
Scheduled Castes ;
ii out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or
faculty, seven and one-half per cent. seats shall be reserved
for the Scheduled Tribes ;
iii. out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or
faculty, twenty-seven per cent. seats shall be reserved for the
Other Backward Classes .”
[emphasis supplied]
3. The expression “ out of the annual permitted strength ” referred to in
Section 3 above, has been defined in Section 2(b) in the following words:
Page 2 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
“ 2. Definitions:-
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
xxx xxx xxx
b " annual permitted strength " means the number of seats, in
.
a course or programme for teaching or instruction in each
branch of study or faculty authorised by an appropriate
authority for admission of students to a Central Educational
Institution;
xxx xxx xxx”
4. From the academic year 2009-10 onwards, respondent No. 1 –
University started following the reservation norms as prescribed in the
th
Reservation Act. On 20 June, 2012, the aforesaid Statute was amended
by virtue of the Amendment Act and as a result of the said amendment,
Clauses (ia) and (ib) were inserted in Section 2, i.e. the definition clause
and two provisos were inserted in Section 3. Further, Clause (a) of Section
4 was omitted and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 were amended.
The aforesaid Amendment Act, 2012 that forms the bedrock of the
grievance raised in the present appeal, is extracted below for ready
reference:
“THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
(RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) AMENDMENT
ACT,2012
NO. 31 OF 2012 [19th June, 2012]
PREAMBLE
An Act to amend the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation
in Admission) Act, 2006 Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-third
Year of the Republic of India as follows: -
SECTION - 1 . Short title .-This Act may be called the Central Educational
institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012.
SECTION - 2. Amendment of section 2 -In section 2 of the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (5 of 2007)
(hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), after clause (i), the following
clauses shall be inserted, namely:-
Page 3 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
(ia) "Specified north-eastern region " means the area comprising of
the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura and the tribal areas of Assam referred to
in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution;
(ib) " State seats ", in relation to a Central Educational Institution, means
such seats, if any, out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of
study or faculty as are earmarked to be filled from amongst the eligible
students of the State in which such institution is situated;
SECTION -3. Amendment of section 3 .- In section 3 of the principal Act,
the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:-"Provided that the State
seats, if any, in a Central Educational Institution situated in the tribal
areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution shall be
governed by such reservation policy for the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes, as may be specified,
by notification in the Official Gazette, by the Government of the State
where such institution is situated:
Provided further that if there are no State seats in a Central
Educational Institution and the seats reserved for the Scheduled
castes exceed the percentage specified under clause (i) or the seats
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes exceed the percentage specified
under clause (ii) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes taken together exceed the sum of percentages
specified under clauses (i) and (ii), but such seats are-
(a) less than fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength on the
date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this Act,
the total percentage of the seats required to be reserved for the
Other Backward Classes under clause (iii) shall be restricted to the
extent such sum of percentages specified under clauses (i) and (ii)
falls short of fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength,;
(b) more than fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength on the date
immediately preceding the date of commencement of this Act, in that
case no seat shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes under
clause (iii) but the extent of the reservation of seats for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall not be reduced in respect of
Central Educational Institutions in the specified north-eastern region.".
SECTION - 4 . Amendment of section 4 .-In section 4 of the principal Act,
clause (a) shall be omitted.
SECTION - 5. Amendment of section 5 .-In section 5 of the principal Act,
- (a) in sub-section (1), for the words "number of such seats available",
the words "number of such seats available or actually filled, wherever be
less, shall be substituted;
(b) in sub-section (2), for the words "three years", the words "six years"
shall be substituted.”
[emphasis supplied]
5. Relying on the provision of reservation made under Section 3 of the
Reservation Act, Respondent No. 1 – University promulgated Ordinance
5.2, that prescribes rules relating to admission to the University and
Page 4 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
Ordinance 5.4 deals with reservation of seats and other special provisions
for admission to the University, both in the year 2014. Rule 18 of Ordinance
5.2 reads as below:
“18. 15% of the seats in the academic programmes offered by the
University shall be reserved for students belonging to
Scheduled Caste, 7-1/2 % for students belonging to Scheduled
Tribe and 27% for students belonging to Other Backward
Classes .
Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent
the University from making special provisions for admission of
women, persons with disabilities or of persons belonging to the
weaker sections of the society and, in particular, of the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the other socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens.
Provided further that no such special provision shall be made on
the ground of domicile.”
[emphasis supplied]
6. While Rule 1 of Ordinance 5.4 deals with reservation of seats, Rule 2
deals with reservation of seats for students belonging to SC & ST
categories. Respondent No. 1 – University has stipulated in Rule 2.1 of
Ordinance 5.4 as below:
“ 2. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
22.5% of seats in all Courses will be reserved for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the following
order:
2.1 15% of seats will be reserved for Scheduled Castes
and 7.5% Scheduled Tribes. 27% of seats will be
reserved for OBC. “
7. For the academic year 2014-15, respondent No. 1- University issued
a prospectus, stating inter alia that seats shall be reserved as per the
th
Government of India norms. In the Press Release dated 24 July, 2014,
respondent No. 1 – University clarified that for conducting admissions for
Page 5 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
the academic year 2014-15, reservation will be provided to the extent of 2%
for SC category, 31% for ST category and 17% for OBC category.
8. Aggrieved by the denial of admission to them, the appellants, who are
candidates belonging to the SC category and had applied for admission in
various Post Graduate courses, questioned the purported reduction of the
quota for SC category candidates from 15%, as prescribed in Section 3 of
the Reservation Act to 2% and filed a writ petition in the High Court of
Manipur which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order
st
dated 01 September, 2015, holding inter alia that the percentage of
reservation for SC and ST candidates, as was applied to the respondent
No. 1 – University prior to the commencement of the Reservation Act,
would be adopted for determination of percentage of reservation for the
reserved categories in question. It was specifically directed that the
percentage of reservation for the students belonging to the SC, ST and
OBC categories in the University, would be 2%, 31% and 17% respectively
for admission to various courses. However, the Court declined to go into
the actual calculation of the seats notified as reserved by the respondent
No. 1 – University and confined itself to the principles to be adopted for
determination of percentage of reservation of seats on which basis,
calculation of the seats had to be made.
st
9. Dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment dated 01 September, 2015,
the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 40 of 2015 before the High Court of
Page 6 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
Manipur at Imphal. As no Division Bench was available due to paucity of
Judges in the said Court, recourse was taken to filing a Transfer Petition
before this Court, which was allowed and the captioned writ appeal was
transferred to the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong for adjudication by a
Division Bench and was re-numbered as Writ Appeal No. 83 of 2016.
th
10. Vide judgment dated 20 April, 2017, the Division Bench of the High
Court of Meghalaya remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge
of the Manipur High Court for consideration afresh and called upon the said
Court to examine and decide the percentage of reservation for SC, ST and
OBC categories in the light of the second proviso to Section 3 of the
Reservation Act [as amended vide Amendment Act] and the effect of
Ordinance 5.2 and Ordinance 5.4, promulgated by the respondent No. 1 –
st
University. It is on remand that the impugned judgment dated 21 August,
2017 has been passed by the High Court of Manipur, the concluding para
whereof is extracted below for ready reference:
“[71] This Court accordingly, concludes and directs as follows:
(i) This Court holds, as also held by Hon'ble Division Bench, that
the Second Proviso provides the formulae for working out the
percentage of reservation for the OBCs in the Institutions located in
the States within the specified north eastern region which is to be
worked out on the basis of the figures of percentages for the SCs
and STs existing on the date immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Act of 2006.
(ii) It is this set of figures of percentages for the SCs and STs
existing on the date immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Act of 2006 ascertained and used for
working out the percentage of reservation for the OBCs, which
would also be the percentages of reservation for admission for the
SCs and STs after the amendment of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 by the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012, and the Institute or the Manipur University cannot
Page 7 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
anymore invoke Clause (i) and (ii) of Section 3 to determine the
reservation for the SCs and STs separately.
(iii) The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006 as amended in the year 2012, does not provide nor the
Hon'ble Division Bench had held that, once the aforesaid set of
figures of percentages for SCs and STs existing on the date
immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Act of
2006 have been ascertained and used for working out the
percentage of reservation for the OBCs, this set has to be
jettisoned and ignored and the Institute. (Manipur University in this
case) can go back to Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 to determine
the reservation of reservation for the SCs and STs independent of
the figures used under the Second Proviso after the amendment of
the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006 in 2012.
Neither the Act, nor the Hon'ble Division Bench has stated
that irrespective of the formula for ascertaining the percentage of
reservation for the OBCs as provided under the Second Proviso to
Section 3 of the Act after the amendment in 2012, the Institute has
to apply Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Act to fix the
percentage of reservation for the SCs and STs.
(iv) Second Proviso was specifically inserted for the Central
Educational Institutions located in the specified North Eastern
Region for protecting the interest of STs, particularly as evident
from the Clause (b) of the Second Proviso . It protects the interest
of the STs wherever, their percentage of reservation is more than
what is prescribed under Clause (ii) of Section 3 of the Act. The Act
specifically provides that even if the extent of reservation of seats
of the STs & SCs exceed 50% of the annual permitted strength on
the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the
Act, there shall not be reservation for the OBCs under Clause (3)
but, the extent of reservation of seats for STs & SCs shall not be
reduced.
(v) The Institute has to determine the percentages of reservation
for admission for the SCs, STs and OBCs on the basis of the
Central Educational institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006 as amended in 2012 and not on the basis of any other
statute. In the present case, the Manipur University has to fix the
percentages of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs on the
basis of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Act, 2006 as amended in 2012 and not on the basis of
Section 31(1)(a) or any other provision of the Manipur University
Act, 2005 as the Manipur University Act is no more the source of
authority for determining the percentages of reservation after the
implementation of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation
in Admission) Act, 2006.
(vi) The reservation norm has to be adopted by the Manipur
University by referring to the Central Educational Institutions
(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 as amended by the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012 only and by not referring to any provision of the Manipur
University Act, 2005.
(vii) Accordingly, any Statute or Ordinance or any rule or
notification fixing the percentage of reservation for admission
framed/issued by the Manipur University has to conform to the
aforesaid norm of 2% for the Scheduled Castes, 31 % for the
Scheduled Tribes and 17% for the Other Backward Classes
worked out and ascertained in terms of the Second Proviso to
Page 8 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Act, 2006 as amended in 2012. Any other norm not
conforming to the above will be invalid being in contravention of the
Central Education Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006
as amended in 2012.
(viii) Ordinances 5.2 and 5.4 made by the Manipur University as far
as determining the percentages of reservation for the SCs, STs
and OBCs are concerned, are not valid. Hence, these have no
value, worth or effect as far as the issue of determination of the
percentages of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs in Manipur
University is concerned.
(ix) In any event, it has not been shown by these Ordinances, how
the Manipur University had fixed the percentage of reservation for
the OBCs at 27% in the face of the formulae specifically provided
under the Second Proviso for working out the percentage of
reservation for the OBCs and also for the SCs and STs. To that
extent, these Ordinances also suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.
(x) The validity of these Ordinances relating to other matters, other
than fixation of percentage of reservation for admission of
students, not being an issue in this petition, is left open to be
decided in appropriate case.
(xi) Before the implementation of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, Manipur
University was following the reservation norm of 2% for the
Scheduled Castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes and 17% for
the Other Backward Classes.
(xii) After the implementation of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, Manipur
University started following the reservation norm as per
Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Act to the extent of
15% for the Scheduled Castes, 7.5% for the Scheduled Tribes,
and 27% for the Other Backward Classes from the academic
year 2009-2010.
(xiii) After the amendment of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 in 2012
introduced by the Central Educational Institutions
(Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012, Manipur
University has to follow the reservation norm of 2% for the
Scheduled castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes and 17% for
the Other Backward Classes. ”
[emphasis supplied]
11. Ms. Punam Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed
the impugned judgment contending that the High Court has erred in taking
a view that the proviso inserted vide the Amendment Act, would be
4
applicable to a Central Educational Institution located in States falling
4 For short “the CEI”
Page 9 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
within the “S pecified north eastern region” and that the extent of
reservation would have to be worked out on the basis of the figures of
percentage for the SCs and STs, as was existing on the date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act. It is her
submission that the amendments brought about by the Amendment Act are
only in respect of tribal States falling under the purview of the Sixth
5
Schedule to the Constitution of India and not in respect of other States
including a State like Manipur falling under “Specified north eastern region”,
defined in the amended Section 2 (ia) of the Parent Act [ Reservation Act].
12. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to draw a distinction
between the amended Section 2 (ia) that defines “Specified north eastern
region” and the amended Section 3 by virtue of the Amendment Act by
urging that clause (ia) of Section 2 has been inserted only to group together
all North Eastern States, irrespective of whether they fall under the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution or not, whereas Section 3 makes a separate
provision for a tribal State. She submitted that the second proviso was
inserted in Section 3 only to ensure that the percentage of reservation
provided for in Section 3 (i) and (ii) of the Reservation Act that laid down the
percentage of reservation of seats for SC and ST candidates as 15% and
7.5% respectively, were to be maintained and not that the same could be
increased or decreased by the CEI in a “Specified north eastern region”. It
was canvassed that the group of States defined in Section 2 (ia) as
5 For short “the Constitution”
Page 10 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
“Specified north eastern region”, have been created by the Amendment Act
with the specific purpose of protecting the interest of SC and ST candidates
belonging to other North Eastern States that are not tribal States and
contrary to the said provision, respondent No. 1 – University has reduced
the quota of seats for SC candidates, which is impermissible.
13. It was further sought to be pointed out on behalf of the appellants that
amendment to Section 3 of the Reservation Act was necessitated only
because Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act, stood omitted by the
Amendment Act. Pertinently, Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act as it stood
prior to the amendment, stated that the provision of Section 3 of the Act
would not apply to a CEI established in tribal areas, referred to in the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution. It was submitted that the intention of the
Legislature in amending the Reservation Act by introducing the Amendment
Act was not to make the amendments applicable to CEIs situated in non-
tribal States like the State of Manipur and the expression “on the date
immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act” ,
as used in the second proviso to Section 3 of the Act, qualifies the
expression “annual permitted strength” as used in Section 3 and defined in
Section 2(b) of the Parent Act and not the extent of reservation.
14. To sum up, it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants
that the Amendment Act was legislated to ensure that reservation for SC
and ST candidates as prescribed in Section 3 of the Parent Act, should not
Page 11 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
be reduced from the benchmark of 15% and 7.5% respectively. Rather, the
Amendment Act contemplates that the percentage of reservation for SC and
ST candidates earmarked in Section 3 of the Parent Act could be increased
even to the detriment of the earmarked percentage of reservation for OBC
candidates, to ensure that the overall limit of 50% reservation for SC and
ST candidates taken collectively, is not disturbed in any manner.
15. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appeared for the
respondent No. 5 - Union of India that has filed a counter affidavit through
the Ministry of Human Resource Development. In its counter affidavit, Union
of India has supported the findings returned in the impugned judgment to
the effect that the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates was
existing and being applied by the respondent No. 1 – University when it was
a ‘State University’, before the commencement of the Reservation Act, viz.
31% for STs and 2% for SCs which was required to be adopted for
determination of the percentage of reservation for ST and SC candidates in
the University and that the percentage of reservation for OBC candidates
was to be restricted to the extent of the percentages of reservation for the
ST and SC candidates taken collectively, provided it falls short of 50% of
the annual permitted strength, as provided under clause (a) of the second
proviso to the amended Section 3 of the Reservation Act. It is the stand of
the Union of India that the percentage of reservation for SC, ST and OBC
candidates has been correctly pegged at 2%, 31% and 17% respectively for
Page 12 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
admission to various courses in the respondent No. 1 – University, since the
same percentage was applicable immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Reservation Act.
16. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 7, an ST category candidate has supported the stand taken
by the respondent No. 5 - Union of India and submitted that the plea of the
appellants for restoration of minimum 15% reservation for SC students is
impermissible. He argued that the respondent No. 1 – University is a
‘Central University’ and is governed by the Rules and Regulations of the
Central Government which in this case, translates into the Reservation Act.
He clarified that the respondent No. 1 – University had the status of a ‘State
University’ only till the year 2005 and at that point in time, it was following
the then prevalent rules of reservation in the State of Manipur viz. 2% for
SC candidates and 31% for ST candidates for admission in courses offered
by the University. However, the said position changed when the respondent
No. 1 – University was granted the status of a ‘Central University’ in the
year 2005 and was thereafter governed under the Reservation Act which
rd
came into force w.e.f. 03 January, 2007. On being designated as a Central
University, respondent No. 1 – University discontinued the reservation
norms of the State Government and started following the reservation norms
provided under Section 3 of the Reservation Act i.e., 15% for SCs, 7.5% for
STs and 27% for OBCs. Learned counsel clarified that the respondent No.
Page 13 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
1 – University was not covered under the exemption clause provided under
Section 4 (a) of the Parent Act that was subsequently repealed since the
University is not an “institution established in tribal areas”, referred to in the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. Only after enactment of the Amendment
Act did the respondent No. 1 – University make changes in its reservation
policy and in compliance to the proviso of Section 3, inserted post
amendment, the University restored the earlier norms of reservation by
reserving 2% seats for SCs, 31% seats for STs and 17% seats for OBCs.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 concluded by submitting that the
impugned judgment projects the correction position and does not warrant
any interference by this Court.
17. Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos. 8, 9 and 10 has also supported the findings returned in the impugned
judgment and submitted that in compliance to the Amendment Act,
respondent No. 1 - University has rightly calculated the ratio of reservation
of seats in admission to 31% for ST, 2% for SC and 17% for OBC
candidates. He submitted that a plain reading of the last part of clause (a) of
the second proviso to Section 3 of the Parent Act, as amended vide
Amendment Act makes it amply clear that in view of the substantial tribal
population in the State of Manipur and the other States mentioned in
Section 2(ia) that defines “ Specified north eastern region”, the ratio of
reservation for SC and ST candidates prevailing immediately before the
Page 14 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
enactment of the Reservation Act would not be reduced. At the same time,
the said ratio of reservation would not be controlled by the general rule of
the ratio of reservation as provided under Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3
of the Parent Act. Learned counsel sought to urge that Amendment Act
was necessitated only to rectify the anomaly in Section 3 of the Reservation
Act that provided a blanket reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates
while overlooking the fact that in the case of the State of Manipur, over 42%
of the population is tribal as against only 3.4% of the population that falls
under the SC category. He sought to explain that the second proviso was
inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act to carve out an exception to the
general rule of reservation as provided in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section
3 and that respondent No. 1 - University is squarely covered under the said
proviso since there is no State seat reserved in the said University for
purposes of allocation which is the first requirement prescribed for
application of the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Act.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 – the UGC has,
however, subscribed to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
appellants and submitted that reduction of the number of seats reserved for
SC candidates in the respondent No. 1 – University runs contrary to the
mandate of the Reservation Act. It is his submission that the Amendment
Act provides for reduction of reservation to the OBC category candidates to
the extent that there need not be any reservation at all for the said category
Page 15 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
only to ensure that there is no reduction in the overall seats reserved for the
SC and ST candidates. Referring to the provisos incorporated in Section 3
of the Parent Act by virtue of the amendments, learned counsel submitted
that the requirement that “ the extent of reservation of seats for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall not be reduced in respect of Central
Education Institutions in specified North Eastern Regions” applies not only
to the situation contemplated in Clause (a) to the second proviso appended
to Section 3 of the Parent Act, but also to Clause (b) to the second proviso .
In other words, reservation made for SC and ST candidates should not be
reduced to the extent below what was prevailing before the Reservation
Act, 2006 came into force or after the said enactment thereby meaning that
reservation for SC candidates could not be less than 15% and for ST
candidates could not be less than 7.5%. Therefore, provision of only 2%
reservation to SC candidates by the respondent No. 1 – University violates
the mandates of Section 3 of the Parent Act.
19. We have perused the impugned judgment and given our thoughtful
consideration to the multifaceted arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties.
20. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 – University was originally
established as a ‘State University’ in the year 1980 under the Manipur
University Act No. 8 of 1980. As a State University, respondent No. 1 –
University was following the Manipur Sate reservation policy by reserving
Page 16 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
2% seats for SC candidates and 31% for ST candidates for admission into
th
various courses. On 13 October, 2005, the respondent No. 1 – University
was converted into a ‘Central University’ under the Manipur University Act
No. 54 of 2005. After conversion too, respondent No. 1 - University
continued following the Manipur State Reservation Policy, i.e., 2% for SC
and 31% for ST for admission upto the academic session 2008-2009. On
rd
3 January, 2007, the Reservation Act came into force. Pursuant thereto,
the respondent No. 1 – University started following the reservation policy as
prescribed in Section 3 of the Reservation Act i.e. 15% for SCs, 7.5% for
STs and 27% for OBCs for the academic session 2009-2010 onwards. A
shift in reservation came on amendment of the Reservation Act by virtue of
th
the Amendment Act w.e.f. 19 June, 2012.
21. The necessity to amend the Reservation Act can be gleaned from a
glance at the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Central
6
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Bill, 2010
which is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006 provides , inter alia , for the reservation in admission of students
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other
Backward Classes of citizens to the extent of fifteen per cent., seven and
one-half per cent. and twenty-seven per cent. respectively to certain
Central Educational Institutions established, maintained or aided by the
Central Government. It also provides for mandatory increase of seats in
such institutions over a maximum period of three years from the
academic session commencing on and from the calendar year, 2007.
Section 4 of the aforesaid Act further provides that the provisions of the
6 For short ‘the Amendment Bill’
Page 17 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
Act are not applicable to certain Central Educational Institutions including
those established in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to
the Constitution.
2. It is noted that some of the Central Educational Institutions
particularly those situated in the North-Eastern States including
Sikkim (but excluding the non-tribal areas of Assam) inhabited
significantly, and in some cases predominantly by tribal population
and Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, which has
been reserving fifty per cent. seats for the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes in keeping with the objects specified in the Act
establishing that University, have been showing their inability to
reduce the extent of reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes prevailing therein, in order to give way for
reservation of twenty-seven per cent. of seats for the Other
Backward Classes as stipulated under the Act. Further, the existing
provisions of the Act exempt the Central Educational Institutions
situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution from reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, if any, but this was not intended while enacting
the aforesaid Act, except in case of Minority Educational Institutions
which are exempt in terms of clause (5) of article 15 of the
Constitution. Moreover, some of the Central Educational Institutions
have been finding it difficult to adhere to the time-limit of three
years for creation of the requisite physical and academic
infrastructure owing to various reasons beyond their control.
3. In order to remove the aforesaid practical difficulties being faced
by the various Central Educational Institutions in giving effect to the
provisions of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Act, 2006, it has become necessary to amend certain
provisions of the Act. It is also proposed to clarify that implementation of
the Act has, in fact, taken effect from the calendar year 2008 and not from
the year 2007 as specified in section 6 of the Act.
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.”
[emphasis supplied]
22. The aforesaid Bill was placed before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
7 th
Human Resources Development , that submitted its 234 Report, which was tabled
th
before both the Houses of the Parliament on 26 February, 2011. The Standing
Committee took note of the Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending the
Reservation Act as reproduced hereinabove and also noticed the practical difficulties
faced by some of the CEIs in implementing the provisions of the Reservation Act as
expressed by the Department of Higher Education. The clarifications given by the
Department of Higher Education for proposing amendment to Section 3 of the Parent
Act have been summarized in paras 3.4 and 3.5 of the Report as below: -
7 For short ‘ the Standing Committee’
Page 18 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
“ 3.4 The Committee takes note of the following clarification given
by the Department for bringing the proposed amendments in Section 3: -
(i) State Seats, if any, in a Central Educational Institution (CEI)
situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution shall be governed by the reservation policy of the concerned
State Government in the matter of admissions of SCs, STs and OBCs to
that CEI.
(ii) In a CEI with no State seats, if the seats reserved for the SCs
exceed 15 per cent or the seats reserved for the STs exceed 7 .5 per cent
or the seats reserved for the SCs and the STs taken together in a CEI
exceed 22.5 per cent but fall short of 50 per cent of the annual permitted
strength, the percentage of seats reserved for the OBCs shall be
restricted to such shortfall.
(iii) In a CEI with no State Seats, if the seats reserved for SCs or
the STS or both taken together in a CEI exceed 50 per cent of the annual
permitted strength, that CEI shall be exempt from making any reservation
for the OBCs. Further, if such a CEI is situated in the north-eastern
States, including Sikkim but excluding the non-tribal areas of Assam, the
percentage of seats reserved for the SCs or the STs shall not be reduced
from the level obtaining on the date immediately preceding the date of the
commencement of the Act; while in case of a CEI situated in other areas
the percentage of seats reserved for the SCs and STs in that CEI shall
stand reduced to 50 per cent.
3.5 While the Committee is convinced with the proposed
amendment in Section 3, it would like to point out that there are
conceptual difficulties in determining the 13 OBC reservation in the
States. While the SC/ST reservation may be definite, it is the OBC
reservation which may differ from State to State. The Committee is
also aware of the fact that reconciliation has to be made between 50
per cent cap on reservation and 27 per cent OBC quota. The
Committee is of the view that OBC percentage is to be decided by
taking SC and ST reservation as a compulsory component. Since
the extent of reservation is 50 per cent whatever remaining after
fulfilling the SC/ST reservation may go to OBCs.”
23. The reasons for omitting Clause (a) of Section 4, which exempted
application of Section 3 of the Parent Act to a CEI established in tribal areas
referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, was discussed in paras
3.7 and 3.8 of the Report in the following manner: -
“3.7 This clause seeks to omit clause (a) of section 4, thereby
withdrawing the exemption erroneously given to the CEIs established in
the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution from
implementing the reservation policy for SCs and STs, if any, in force
immediately preceding the date of the coming into force of the principal
Act.
3.8 On a specific query about the factors necessitating the
proposed amendment, the Committee was informed that as per the
existing provision, reservation policy for SCs, STs and OBCs could not be
Page 19 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
considered to be applicable to CEIs established in the tribal areas. While
the intention of the Government was to exempt such CEIs from
implementing 27 per cent reservation introduced for the OBCs only, these
institutions were inadvertently exempted from reservation for SCs/STs as
well, if any, in force, immediately preceding the date of coming into force
of the Act. In view of the clarification given by the Department, the
Committee accepts the proposed amendment so as to remove any
ambiguity with regard to specific ground realities governing the
CEls established in the Sixth Schedule States.”
24. It is noteworthy that the Division Bench of the High Court of
th
Meghalaya did discuss the 234 Report at page 24 of the judgment dated
th
20 April, 2017, in the context of the reasons offered by the learned Single
st
Judge in the earlier judgment dated 1 September, 2015 wherein it was
held that by an inference drawn from the said Report, one could determine
the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates for purposes of
applying the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act post-
amendment, but the appellate court was not persuaded by the said logic.
25. It is no longer res integra that Reports and recommendations made by
the Parliamentary Committees/Commissions that precede enactment of a
Statute can be used as external aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguous
words in a statutory provision wherever considered necessary. It can also
be taken note of as to the existence of a historical fact. At the same time, it
must be borne in mind that such Reports are not decisive and a Court is
free to arrive at a different conclusion based on its own findings and other
8
evidence produced by the parties. [Refer State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap ,
9
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and Kalpana Mehta and Others. v. Union of
8 (1974) 3 SCC 337
9 (1984) 2 SCC 183
Page 20 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
10
India and Others ]. For our purpose, we do not intend to take notice of
the said Report with an idea of determining the extent of reservation for SC
and ST candidates in the light of the amendment by way of insertion to
Section 3 of the Parent Act. However, the said Report can be treated as a
useful tool to fathom the background in which the Amendment Act was
introduced and throw light on what had weighed with the legislating
authorities in proposing the amendments to the Reservation Act.
26. It can be discerned from the Statement of Objects and Reasons
appended to the Amendment Bill, the background notes submitted to the
th
Standing Committee by the Department of Higher Education and the 234
Report tabled by the Standing Committee in the Parliament that some of the
CEIs, in particular those situated in North Eastern States having a pre-
dominant tribal population, expressed their inability to reduce the extent of
reservation of seats for SCs and STs for ensuring reservation of 27% of the
seats for the OBC category, as stipulated in the Reservation Act. It can also
be seen that the provisions of the Reservation Act as they stood, exempted
CEIs situated in tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution, from making any reservation for SCs and STs, which as a
matter of fact, was not the object behind introducing the enactment.
Recognising the fact that the composition of the population in the North
Eastern States ought to be given precedence, the Standing Committee
stated in its Report that while the extent of reservation of seats for SCs/STs
10 (2018) 7 SCC 1
Page 21 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
may be definite, OBC reservation may differ from State to State. It was with
the idea of reconciliating 50% cap on reservation for SCs/STs and 27% for
the OBC quota, that the Amendment Bill was introduced primarily to remove
the existing ambiguities and to overcome the difficulties that were being
faced by the CEIs established in the Sixth Schedule States, to
accommodate the aspirations of a large tribal population in that region.
27. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellants cannot
be heard to state that the amendments brought about in the Reservation
Act by legislating the Amendment Act were only directed towards tribal
States covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and cannot be
made applicable to the State of Manipur, even though the definition of the
expression “ Specified north eastern region ” introduced by virtue of the
amended Section 2(ia) encompasses the State of Manipur. Nor is this Court
persuaded by the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the
second proviso was inserted in Section 3 only to make sure that the
percentage of reservation provided for in Section 3(i) and (ii) of the Parent
Act would remain untouched. Accepting such a submission would
tantamount to negating the very aim and object of the Amendment Act,
which was enacted only to resolve the difficulties that were being faced by
the CEIs in implementing the Reservation Act when it came to the North
Eastern States, including the State of Manipur. The two provisos inserted in
Section 3 of the Parent Act are nothing but a recognition of the demography
Page 22 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
of the North Eastern States covered under the umbrella of “ Specified north
eastern region ” which have a substantial tribal population.
28. It is in the light of the aforesaid factors that it has been held in the
impugned judgment that the respondent No. 1 – University was correct in
calculating the extent of reservation of seats in making admissions to
different courses, viz., 31% for ST candidates, 2% for SC candidates and
17% for OBC candidates which is in line with the mandate of the
Amendment Act. The aforesaid understanding of the respondent No. 1 –
University is also reflected from the affidavit filed by it in opposition to the
writ petition filed by the appellants, in particular, paras 5 and 9 thereof,
which are extracted below for ready reference :
“5. That, in reply to the contents of the paragraph No. 4 of the writ
petition under reply, it is submitted that in view of the
provisions of the Central Educational Institutions
(Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012
reservation of seats in respect of reserved categories,
candidates have to be 31%, 2% and 17% in respect of ST, SC
and OBC candidates respectively. Thus, the seats reserved
for SC have to be recalculated in accordance with the said
Amendment Act, and it was the same percentage of
reservation prevalent in the University prior to the
commencement of the Principal Act i.e. the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006. The distribution of seats/break-up for SC/ST/OBC/UR
based on the said proportion for reservation was intimated to the
Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Manipur vide the
letter dated 23- 07-2014, after obtaining the
approval/concurrence of the Heads i and Deans of all subjects of
the Manipur University.
XXX XXX XXX
9. That, in reply to the contents of para No. 1O of the writ
petition under-reply, it is submitted, as stated in the
foregoing paragraphs that the Central Educational
'Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act; 2006 has been
adopted by the Manipur University from the Academic
Session 2009-2010 by providing the quota of seats to the
candidates belonging to the reserved categories in
accordance with the said Act. It is to state that after the
enactment of the Amendment Act, 2012 the provision of
Page 23 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
Ordinance 5.2 ceased to exist and the provision of the Act is
to be implemented/acted upon, as per the law .”
[emphasis supplied]
29. It can be understood from the aforesaid averments made in the
affidavit that on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement
of the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 – University had been
reserving 2% seats for SC and 31% for ST candidates for purposes of
admission. It has been strenuously argued by learned counsel for the
appellants that the meaning ascribed to the words “ date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the 2006 Act ”, used in Clause (a)
of the second proviso to Section 3 should be taken to mean the date just
before enactment of the Amendment Act, i.e., a roll back to the situation as
was prevalent when the Reservation Act had come into force viz. 15% for
SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBC candidates. In our opinion, any such
interpretation would strike at the root of the Amendment Act which was
legislated with the sole object of overcoming the ambiguities that had come
to the fore on working out the warp and woof of the Reservation Act,
namely, the inability to meet the aspirations of a large number of ST
candidates looking for opportunities to gain entry in CEIs located in the
areas subsequently defined as the “Specified north eastern region” in the
Amendment Act.
30. Once the two provisos were inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act by
virtue of the Amendment Act, the general norms of reservation as laid down
Page 24 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act had to be restricted
in terms of the said provisos . While the first proviso deals with “State
seats”, if any, in a CEI situated in tribal areas referred to in the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution, the second proviso addresses a situation
where there are no State seats in a CEI and the seats reserved for the
SC/ST candidates exceeds the percentage specified under Clauses (i) and
(ii) of Section 3 (viz., 15% seats for SCs plus 7.5% for STs, totalling to
22.5% seats) or if the combined seats reserved for the SC and ST
candidates exceeds the sum total of the percentage as specified under
Clauses (i) and (ii). Two riders have also been dovetailed in the second
proviso to Section 3, namely Clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a) of the second
proviso , contemplates a situation where seats referred to in the second
proviso are less than 50% of the annual permitted strength on the date
immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.
Clause (b) provides for a situation where such seats are over 50% of the
annual permitted strength on the date immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Amendment Act. In a situation contemplated in
Clause (a) of the second proviso , a restriction has been imposed on the
total percentage of seats required to be reserved for OBC candidates under
Section 3(iii) of the Parent Act by limiting them to the balance seats
available after factoring in the combined percentage of seats specified in
Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act, falling short of 50% of the
annual permitted strength. But in circumstances contemplated in Clause
Page 25 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
(b), the Act recognizes the fact that no seats need be reserved for the OBC
candidates under Clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. However, this
is subject to the condition that the extent of reservation of seats for SC and
ST candidates shall not be reduced when it comes to CEIs established in
“ Specified north eastern region ”. This goes to demonstrate that the
underlying intent of the Amendment Act was to secure a particular
percentage of seats through reservation for a set of candidates and leave
some space for capping of seats for OBC candidates, depending on the
circumstances contemplated in Clauses (a) and (b) of the second proviso to
the amended Section 3.
31. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 – University has clarified in
its affidavit that prior to commencement of the Reservation Act, the
prevalent percentage of reservation for ST and SC candidates was 31%
and 2% respectively. Nothing to the contrary has been brought forth by the
appellant. That being the position, we are in complete agreement with the
findings returned in the impugned judgment that the respondent No. 1 –
University was right in reverting back to the position obtaining immediately
before the commencement of the Reservation Act by reserving seats in
respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, pegged at 31%, 2% and 17%
respectively which was in consonance with the Manipur State Reservation
Policy.
Page 26 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
32. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the
respondent No. 1 – University was under a mandate to follow the norms
provided under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act while
giving a complete go by to the provisos inserted in the said provision by
virtue of the Amendment Act which, as per the learned counsel, could be
applied only to determine the percentage of seats required to be reserved
for OBC candidates, is devoid of merits and turned down. To our mind, the
learned Single Judge is perfectly right in making the observation that the
formulae for fixing the percentage of reservation for the SC and ST
candidates and for determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for
OBC candidates under the second proviso of Section 3, ought to be
gathered from the same source and any other interpretation would lead to
uncertainty.
33. To put it differently, the reference point of the period for determining
the reservation quota for OBC candidates must be the same as that of the
SC and ST candidates for the simple reason that for working out the
reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessarily require one to find
out in the first instance, as to what would be the difference between 50% of
the annual permitted strength and the combined existing percentage for the
SC and ST candidates, as obtained on the date immediately preceding the
date of commencement of the Reservation Act. Both the issues are so
interlaced that to determine the percentage of reservation for OBC
Page 27 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
candidates, one would have to undertake an exercise of determining the
percentage of seats to be reserved for SC and ST candidates, all within the
four corners of the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act.
Any other interpretation sought to be assigned to the second proviso to
Section 3 inserted post-amendment, would make the proviso itself
unworkable and redundant and is, therefore, impermissible. Thus, we make
it clear that the general rules of reservation have been encapsulated in
Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. But when it comes to
CEIs established in States falling under the definition of “ Specified north
eastern region ”, categorized in Section 2(ia) introduced by the Amendment
Act, the two new provisos appended to Section 3 would govern the norms
of reservation which prescribes a different criteria, vis-à-vis the main
provision and would apply irrespective of whether they are situated in areas
covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal fails and the impugned
judgment is upheld. We endorse the view taken by the learned Single
Judge that after amendment of the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 –
University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC candidates,
31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in
consonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act
inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act.
Page 28 of 29
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2021 @ SLP© No. 34681 of 2017
35. The appeal is accordingly dismissed while leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
................................. J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
................................... J.
[HIMA KOHLI]
New Delhi,
January 05, 2022.
Page 29 of 29