Karnataka High Court
Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY or SEPTEMBER. 2009 V.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUST:c}: B.S. PATI_I_...L : '
WRIT PETITION No.18534~/201§9 "
BETWEEN:
LGLAKSHA,
S/O. LATE KRANGA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, .
REPRESENTED AS GUARDIAN TO
DAUGHTER, PREETHL
SINCE MINOR, H
R/AT. NG304, ANMGL RESRIVDENCY;
T.V. RAMANAPA1 T
KODAILBAILE, H . .. «
MANGALOREWEYB 003. PETITIONER
[BY SR1. RAVIVAFl\--'LA ::SR. eGUN"SSL}- . A
AND:
1. THE CONVENER, ._
COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST,
{cI,A'I'--2009} ~ V
~ NALS3AR.UNIVERSIT'Y LAW,
" BYITS REGISTRAR,
A ,3»:-76-1_, BARKATPURA,
' ~:-5_0_S 027.
.ANDHRA~PRADESH-
2. NATIONAL LAW SHOOL OF
, INDIA..[}N{VERSI'1"Y{NLSUI).
REP. BY.I'IS REGISTRAR,
= _ BANc»AI,0RE A 560 242,
ATAKA.
"NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF' ADVANCED
LEGAL STUDIES {NUALS}. KOCHI,
REP. BY ITS REGSITRAR.
KALLOR, KOCHI ~« 682 017.
KERALA.
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY.
GANDHINAGAR,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
153-4, GIDC ELECTRONICS ESTATE SECTOR--26.
GANDHINAGAR -- 382 028
GUJARAT.
KUM. SOUMYA NETRA MONDAL, . ~
ADMIT CARD NO.KLO1UO5508, ,
IST YEAR LAW STUDENT (FIVE COURSE),
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED C_AS~'ITE QUOTA.'
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OE INDIAN' ' '-.
UNIVERSITY, NAGAREHAV1 A 560 02,42...'
BANGALORE. . ' '
SRI PREM K AYYATHU I _
ADMIT CARD NO.MMO1Uo852'6,_
15? YEAR LAW STUDENT {FEVEYEAR COURSE). I
SELECTED UNDER' SCHEDUI,.E.D" CAS'1"E.QIIOTA,
NAIIONAL 1.AWS(2}iO_OLIVOF I'NDIAA:.
UN1vERSI'DI';"NASA::§3IDxV'1._;.._560 V0242, '
EANGAIDREV.
KUM,ANUPzxI.¢AARIGALA, ' ~ . u "
ADM1': CARD NO.';N.E)_O3U10.252. .
151' YEAR LAW 'STUDEN'1'I{FI\iEi'. YEAR COURSE),
SELECTED UNDER Sc,HEDU_LED' CASTE QUOTA,
NA'I'IONAL'L_AVJ SCHOOL OE INDIAN
UNIVERSITY';-ANACAARESHAVI --* 550 242,
BANGALORE. '- '
KU'1VI..Ai?}&RA,V'I' IITA
. 'ADMITV NONSOIUOOS27.
L sT"I*EAE._ LAW' STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE),
. SELECTED.VUI~»IDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
'NATIONAL I'AW£=SCHOOL OF INDIAN
UIIIvERSI1fg,j'..NAOAREHAvI -- 550 0242,
BANGALORE.
SR1 PROJWALADIIYA GOPALKRISHNA,
» ADMIT CARD NO.BAo1U00327,
' EST LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE),
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
- " UNIVERSITY,
NAGARBHAVI -- 560 242, BANGALORE.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
KUIVEPREETI RAJORIA.
ADMIT CARD NO.-JDO 1U0469 1,
I3? YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA.
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
UNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI -- 560 242.
BANGALORE.
SRI SUVESH KUMAR.
ADMIT CARD NO.ND03UO9856, I
I51" YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)'
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
UNIVERSITY. NAGARBHAVI --~ 5602.42.
BANGALORE. .
KUIVLRICHA SARASWATI " - _
ADMIT CARD NO.P'I01U127..-'39! 2
157' YEAR LAW STUDENT' {FIVE YELAR.COU.RSVE)' A.
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTTE QUEOTA. I
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OFINDIAN . .
UNIVERSITY, NAGARBIIAvIw- SS0 242,
BANGALORE. J i .4
SR1 PRIYAD§A'R;3V'H.IV .:
ADMIT CARDVNO.c_-:N01U03534'.~ I 2
181" YEAR LAW' STGBENT' :.FIviE YEAR COURSE)
SELECTED IJNIJER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA.
NA'FIG.NAL_ LAW'SCH._OOL 0}? INDIAN
UNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI :..56o__242,
BANGALORE '
'SR1 AMITANANAD; _ V. ._ ~
AD1\iIT CARD NO .ELo2U0e521,
13? LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)
' . SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
. 'IVIA'1'IOI§IAI..L'..43IW'--SCE~iOOLOF INDIAN
'Ul\IIV'ERSITY. VLEIAGARBHAVI -- 560 242,
A '~ .BA1fJGALO'RE_ , I . --'
I5.
KUM.SWATI_ C'cj:EAANDRA.
ADMIT NO.KL02UlO205,
1-ST YEAR LAW STUDENT (FIVE YEAR COURSE)
.SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
» NA'I'I.ONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
ENIVERSIIY, NAGAREHAVI -- 560 242.
EUMPRAVEENA RAJASEKAR.
ADMIT CARD NOBAO I UO0726.
1ST YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN
UNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI ««~ 560 242,
BANGALORE.
17. SM SOURAV MANOHAR SARDAR.
ADMIT CARD NO.KLo2Uo6432,
EST YEAR LAW STUDENT [FIVE COURSE) .-
SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE 'Q'U~OTA,
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN 1. 2
UN1vERS1TY,NAGARBHAvI -- 560 242, i
BANGALORE. _ A A
(BY M/S. GURURAJ 3: ASSTS. ADV. RORR1-1;
SR1. UDAYA HOLLA. SR. COUNSEL "
FOR SRLVIVEK HOLLA, ADv.;.i~iOR R-2?" -. _
SR1. ADITYA SONDR1, ADV. FQR._R--5.' 6, S, 9. 10, 12516;
R-4 SD.) ~ - r 1 I
.' ::s;i:a= . I
THIS WRIT is FILED DNDER'ARri'iCi,ES 226 ax 227 OF
THE CONS'IiTDTiO'i-.r.__ VOE--'i;NDLAV----..RRAy1NIG" ._'1'0__ QUASI-I THE IMPUONED
SECOND PROW.SIO.1\§(\L IIST 'SELi'{?CTED CANDIDATES FOR
TNDIVIDUAIQ PUBLISHED BY THE 15'?
RESPONDEfNT._ONLY"'~.iR.V_:SO'EAR*--..AS-ALLOTINO TI-IE SEAT "DO THE
PERTTONERADATJGRTER' .TRE_?w+"'RESPONDENT GUJARAT NADONAL
LAW UN1vERiS'Dfl OANDHDIAGAR AT SL. NO.3, IN THE SCHEDULED
CASTE CATEGORY' ATVPAGE 4 TO 9 IS CONCERNED AND Eire.
V "'TF11SA"ii*ETiTiON HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ION :3'1".eS.29o9.;"COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COEJRT__MADE~1f'OLLO\RHNG:»
ORDER
I Petitioner is the father of the minor girl, Preethi. He has __ "efiletli this writ petition Seeking a direction to respondentsml & 2 I' to give admission to his daughter to the Undergraduate different National Law Universities in the country after completing her 10+2 exams.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that his da14ghterl'hlavirigl U' evinced interest to pursue the law coursein the 2l?*'i'eresporiL*leri.t 0 University, took CLAT «-~ 2009 under reserved preference to the 2"" respondent~University .second'U preference to the 15* p_ respondlen_t-'Univers*ityV._iA arid third preference to the 3"' 'On 15.06.2009, the 1st respondent.Vpublishedlthev in which the daughter of rank in the merit list for General in the merit list for Scheduled on her ranking in the Schedu1ed"Caste "151 respondent allotted a seat in the 3"? respolnd.ent«e~iNa'tiona1 University of Advanced Legal (NUALS}, Koehi',lvKerala, under the quota reserved for Icategoiy. As the daughter of the petitioner did notl'hle1ong.ltop_ 'the communities classified by the Kerala 'Government as Scheduled Caste for the purpose of admission _ professional conrses she was not given admission under the _":Scheduled Caste quota in the 3"' respondent~ University.
" K University. He has placed strong reliance On the judgments of the Apex Court in 1990 (3) sec 130 (MARRI SHEKHAR mo Vs. DEAN. SETH G.s.:vmmcAL ee.L_LEOE _.__v&.. OTHERS} and 1994 (5) sec 244 (ACTION on _ ISSUE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE To :sCHi§D1?£EB'1 SCHEDULED TRIBES IN THE STATE ANOTHER vs. UNION OF ANi)TI£ER];'_: d':~ieiirurmer V' contends that as the 2"?srespond'entfUniversit§}is established by the State Legislature undei*'a"St.ate eannot claim the status of a nationai'ieVe1i;nstitution;'{f,__ ' "
6. Draurinig Court to Items 62, 63, 64, 65 & to the Constitution, he submits thateit is which has to declare the status o_f_an In'stitutio.n as one of national importance. He also "contends any attempt made to affect the rights of persons will be hit by Article 245 of the Constitution as th.e'"$tate'viregislature cannot make any law which has got _ tezfztraterifitoxfiiai jurisdiction. In this regard, he has relied on the _=;§;zdgr':1ents in A.I.R. 1960 s.(:. 1080 (KAVALAPPARA KOCHUNI @ MOOPIL NAYAR. Vs. STATES OF " & KERALA}. 1993 (2) sec 130 [R.S.D.V.FINANCE co. _ 10 ALLAH;
PVT. LTD. Vs. SHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD") 1994 (5) SCC 459 (SHRIKANT Bi-IALCHANDRA KARULKAR 8: OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT 8: ANOTHER).
7. Sri. Ravivarrna Kumar, has also drawn the _ the Court to the Emblems and Names [Preven.--tion.::Improper w. Use) Act, 1950 to contend that tl1_ere:...ipsz fl improper use of certain emblems andlnarnes andllrno person shall use or continue to use _purp'os_ei'of any trade, business, calling or profession, emblem specified in the Schedule by the Central of such other Offices of the Governr:1ent._asa rnay"be'prescrlbed. He, therefore contends that caiinot name the 2nd respondent institution' as 'nationalllexlkel __ institution.
8. Sriv.Uda'ya llriolla, Senior Counsel appearing for "the 2:?'repspondentelfiational Law School contends that the 21"
'national level institution. He invites the attention of'th_e..9Court to the preamble to the Statute which lestablislieslthe 2*" respondent~University namely the National School of India Act, 1986 [Karnataka Act No.22/1986), to 'nliigiililght the fact that it was the Bar Council of India Trust VIIIIII _.
which was instrumental in establishing the 2nd respondent- University to carry out its objects of establishing, maintaining and running a model law college in India. With this vobjejct.._in mind, a society by name 'National Law School of . was registered under the Karnataka Societiesfiegistration 1960 {Karnataka Act No. 17/1960) with anintention"to"deyfelcfi teaching and research institute' higher it was the National Law School of Society Vijequested the State Government to ilational School of India University on the lines' to enable it to carry out its objectland fuginctionss with this object, to enconv1"age._the hes:-tab1ishmcnt"reeof S such a national level institution in the Wolfe-iiarnataka, the State Legislature established lthe enacting the law. He takes me ...,.throu.gh. the Consti-tu_tion of the General Council and as also 'Executive,:Conncil of the 2"" respondentmliniversity and ernphhasizesllltlive that there is hardly any State Control over the 253' resVt>ondent--University which has been conceived by the H 'S Council of India Trust as a National Level Institution. It is further contention that the Governing Council of the 2nd lmriesnondent -- University has framed Regulations providing EV M14.
as it is oniy an enabling provision. He places reliance on the judgments in AIR 1963 so 649 {M.R.BALAJI 8: oriigitsvs. STATE 01? MYSORE 8: OTHERS) and 2003 (9) scc;29'4; or INDIA Vs. R.RAJESI-IWARAN & ANQIHER) this, connection. He also contends that statutory authorities including the respon'dent~LlniversitieslhasF9 got the power to choose the from" adndissions have to be made as long) asxit isxnoth tinrevasonable. In support of this contention; judgment in 1939 (2) sec 145. UNIVERSITY sz ANOTHER] and :29?'---"(o:§;y.cHANoHALA Vs. STATE or MYso)z)=;sv3;"'of_i*i1is:3s). "
10. reference~to'<t:he.:r.atio laid down in 1990 (3) SCC 130 s~:~iEKHAR mo vs. DEAN, SETH OTHERS), he places reliance on the V"1_)ud.gs;ent._et ';;h.e"Apex Court in (2005) 3 sec 1 [S.PUSHPA & orinzies Vs.--".$,t\kAeuANMUGAvELU & OTHERS) and urges that [the proposition of law is explained in this case which helps his
- _ V ' 'tcontentions.
W15W '11. Referring to the conduct of the petitioner in challenging the process of selection and admission adopted by the respondent--~UniVersity, Sn' Udaya Holla draws support from the following judglnentsi i.e. AIR 1986 SC 1043 {OM SHUKLA Vs. AK]-IILESH KUMAR SHUKLA sz OTHER.S),'4'_2t):Oi'2_~ {2} sec 615 (SUNEETA. AGGARWAL Vs. STATE op? Airs. _i>rAN.'A* 5,4; OTHERS}, 1995 (3) sec 486 {MADANLALEI ro1fHE_1§s7vs.V's*r'A'rie or J & K AND omens) and contendsthat tpétificxier permitted to chailenge the se1ecti:o'nV_pmade .of'resp:on.dents'5-5 to" V 17 and the non«~se1ection'__of his pAd;a=.ighterpAfor thev.cou1§*se in the 2nd respondent-University" the process of selection without_e'raising"' obj.ectioVn,.V:.AV'"=uArgt:iing on the judgment of;-he'.-V' the case of SUB!-[ASH CHANDRA & ANOTHER netflt' sire-_o1"u)1NATE SERVICES SELECTION BoAR1§a'az_o'r1»i12;Rs;"sLP'V'{civu} No.24327/2005 disposed of on . $r:ip_UdayvamI«-iolla contends that a Bench consisting of of the Supreme Court in Pushpa's it case;-..hax(i11g_plaid down the law, the judgment rendered by a x""'«.__VBench consisting of two Hon'b1e Judges of the Supreme Court it rnot have dissented from the ratio laid down by the Bench. He further submits that in paragraph~46 of LLLLJIA 16 W Subhash Cha.ndra's case it is held that Pushpa's case can be an obiter and therefore even if the law iaid down in Pushpa's case is taken as an obiter then also it is binding on thiusrCourt. It is his further contention that in Subhash Ch¢_;r'iitir'¢.1_~'s:%_ reliance placed on the Constitution Bench .e 1 sec 3.94 (.E.V.CH1NNAIAH vs. s1§aTE:,ors* .a,P;_& is not apposite. ' i i
12. Sri.Aditya Sondhi, Ieameid'-,v:_C--ounse1~:tat)pearing for respondents--5 to 17 contends that institutions which have All India 1evel._examinati_o--ns' also r511ov;4 I.»§;iie same practice of recognising t3_t1e'L_é.»a_tuts:'--of "Caste/ Scheduled Tribe across the of reservation to such institutions. "He "examinations conducted by the UPSC_aI1d the 1fecr*uitrIi'ent':rnade thereof and the process of "seiecit-io'ni.A'rnade to AII'""India Institute of Medical Sciences to ~ écontvention. He also contends that the 2""
rest)ondent}U'n.i'x;ersity has no 'State' character. Placing . ':,e1iance*on':.the judgment in AIR 2994 SC 1861 {State of Tamil Others Vs. S.V.Bratheeb (Minor) 8: Others) he
-17."
contends that different and higher standards can be prescribed by the State for the purpose of attracting better talent.
13. He has filed a memo along with caste certificate_s~l._of proposed respondents 65, 9, 13, 14 & 16 to castes are recognized as Scheduled Cas_te in."the-lfresidential"' Order insofar as Karnataka State is eoncernedfithoulgh a:-be not of Karnataka origin. He has'iVf'u.tftherllexpressed * anxiety over the fate of the students' who haveilnlow sought to be irnpleaded and whoseA--.._selection:~ "s_ought to be challenged by way of amendment of theVl)_\w'Ifit'll§ie'titiE5i3,.l V pleads equity for them and eontenlcislhlthatg their part these students wholA"ar_e to the course and are pursuing their to such hardship. in support of the gr0unds'l"of_f equity pleaded by him for the admitted has brought to the notice of the Court the S 'follojwiiigvi aspects_: 35, S' v_ the 2nd respondent -- University has been following this policy of extending reservation to S. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates all over the country for the last 22 years; W18-
(ii) There is no Inis--representation by the students and that they are selected purely based on'~-their merit;
(iii) Their selection is being now cha1leng_ed.'by*VV_'ixfay _ amendment to the Writ Petition;
(iv) From Tm July 2009, allithese .sttidents'l:hja.y:e*-beer:
prosecuting their studies. infthe 2'1*'~d_ respor1»d'entQ{ University. K _ (V) Even in Marri Chdnti'rashekar"'AR§1o's case at paragraph 24.,' the Supreme '~-Courtt has taken note of equity and"««jtistic.e i:1'to"eofnsi'd.eration to protect the interest of He also llongihevljudgihent of the Punjab and Haryana 2:902 P 8: H 103 (DEPAK vs. U_N_1VERSI'I'Y, KURUKSI-IETRA 3:
OTHERS} on the equity.
14. pp 2Raghavendra,: another Counsel appearing for 17 has adopted the arguments advanced by the Senioi" Sri.Udaya Holla and the learned Counsel 'll _ SI'i.Ad'hitya S-ondhi.
it it "Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on '~Tcar'eful perusal of the entire materials on record, the points " fall for consideration in this case are:
M19-
i) Whether respondents~1 8: 2 were justified_..__in extending the benefit of reservation for SchednJ_ed._V_ Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates of..d,ii'ferentr~ States while making admission to the ' course for the academic year 2009_~iO.--2=1d respondent--University? wor<is.i5vhether"
the candidates who had the of Caste and Scheduled Tfibe 'Statesa."other_V_tha:i'1 V Karnataka can Cl8iIi"1"'--'_ xfi1€ a Scheduled Caste or Sceh.ed'uled'.T1L'ribe'in the State of Karnataka fo'rA..4_ajdmis_sio§ri. V1"to.._ the e . Zed respondent-
University?
ii) Whetliertttie 296 res-n'on'dent:_%llniirersity was right init-gfnsing"adniission to the petitioner thotugihlshe iseiefigéa Scheduled Caste as per tttt 'Vtti'e.:iPresi:tf1Ver1tia1 1950 in relation to V' Kama£a:i§%a---- ' ' iii} adrtiilssions of respondents--5 to 17 is S ' liable"to_V be cancelled?
' l'xI'iieiqAnesti.ons presented in this writ petition are of Very se'i'iou".sV.nVati'i~re 'hairing significant importance. So far as the V S' 'question Whether students having benefit of Scheduled Caste it Scheduled Tribe status in another State can claim the sim_i1ar--=:status in another State to which they migrated, there "if 'am-two Constitution Bench judgments; (1) in 1990 (33 see 130 m2g_ (MARR1 CHANDRAS!-IEKAR RAO Vs. DEAN, SETH G.S.MEDICAL COLLEGE 8: OTHERS}, {ii} in 1994 (5) SCC 244 (1-'."-.¢"17.I01V COMMITTEE ON ISSUE or CASTE CERTIF?ICAfl'ii§_i' SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES _ if or MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER Va" UNIOH ANOTHER}. In the first of the judgrnentsi' questio.n for consideration was:
"Whether a;...candidatev--. 'whose tfcastefi was recognised as Scheduled' Tri.'ae_irsj'the Constitution {Scheduled Tnlbes) of Andhra Pradesh claim the Tribe in the State of for to the MBBS course {tr} by the State of "ffo1~ Bombay Municipal Corj;>ora'tion?" if -~ ., 1 V d
17. As t'hei"aVnsw4er'._to~.vsaid question depended on the .«-.unde:'s3i:andintg and"interpretation of the provisions contained V'Tunde1'..Arti_cie of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court hasAe1'abotaite1yVA'dea1t with the purport and effect of Articles 341, 1u'5{{i}°'vandfi29(2) of the Constitution of India. The fact that " "Scheda_i1edV'Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some States have to ._.§':'~'dffet the social disadvantages and did not have the facilities " ..:ffo"r"deve1opmcnt and growth and it was therefore necessary, in ...._2J"v-+4 order to make them equal, in those areas where they suffered such disadvantages, to have reservation and protection in their favour is emphasized by the Apex Court. As the sociai conditions of castes vary from State to State, the Coulrtahas found that it was not appropriate to generalise any or, Tribe as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe_for:"the or the country. It is further observed thosegwho State or area should ensure that tiriey-._make,."_;w'ay"for disadvantaged and disabled of th'at:"part of who it suffered from disabilities in those' The"Apex Court determined the controversy case of Marri Chandra"ShelIei:.ar':'?2;ao "heldf at para--13 as under:
' that 'for the purposes of this Constitiitioni inVAftic.1e'«~.3}i'1" as Well as in Article 342 do imply that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes so 'tip¢Cifi€d W0iii£1.13_e__eI1titled to enjoy all the constitutional V are enjoyable by all the citizens as such. " right, e.g., it has been argued that right C. "-to right to move from one part to another is "~a right given to all ------ to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and to" VVn.bn--scheduled castes or tribes. But when a it ' Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition it migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any speciai rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified 3/ W22- for that State or area or part thereof .... ' .... .. The expression "in relation to that State" would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled are carried forward. it will also be inconsistent w;th'_pth'§t.
whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. 1:11:
Praclesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduleu""i*r:.b'egn1ay'--_ require protection because a boy or a child w_ho'growsp in" 'S that area is inhibited or is at ct".sadvantage., 2 "
Maharashtra that caste ortlthat tribe 'may :not._:be_"so_} inhibited but other castes or 'tribes might be.' if-la or a child goes to that,atmospherev--of"-Maharashtra...»as a young boy or a child goesa*--..eoIn'pletely different atmosphere of Maharashtra iifheiie or this disadvantag€_:is.__notftherettiflrieirjhe cannot be said to have that rese:rva_tio.n"wlrlich the children or thevrvpeiople «belonging to any segment of that Statextt<l;{3«._rr1a.y"sti£i...require that protection. After all, lit has to «mind that the protection is necessary forlthe7._disadvantaged castes or tribes of 'J3/Ial1arashtra.,as Well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of 'vr.}?radesh'; """ "Thus, balancing must be done as S V' * betwfeen'those who need protection and those who need 'protecti.onf i.e., who belong to advantaged castes or who do not. Treating the determination tinder Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be .. valid' for all over the country would be in negation to the V. _ fiery purpose and scheme and language of Article 341 read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution." &.
M23__
18. Further, after referring to the Constituent Assembly Debates and the Views of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar on this aspect in para-21, the Apex Court has ruled in para--22 with referen_ce_to the facts in the said case holding that the petitionerin _ case was not entitled to be admitted to the w. the basis of Scheduled Tribe Cei%tifica.tcf'v linfthedi Maharasthra. K S it C
19. Another Constitution of in ACTION COMMITTEES czi§e.. look into the matter as petitioners because the State of Maharashtra-- den'ied«. Tth'e"--ben§efits and privileges available to and Scheduled Tribes specified in relation'totlf1at Sto-rriembers of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled belbng.'ingh.to other States who had migrated fi*orn"ethelri.States to VthevState of Maharashtra. Such benefits and_pi'ivil'egesVh'w_er.e denied on the basis of certain Circulars dlettersllgssued by the Government of India and . 'c.onseque_nti;al instructions issued by the State of Maharashtra that members belonging to the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes specified in relation to any other State _24_ shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by the State of Maharashtra unless the person concerned is shown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra as on 10.08.1950 in the case of Scheduled Castesyyband 06.09.1950 in the case of Scheduled Tribes whieii'weeef'-:;ee'« _ dates on which the President first '» Constitution (Scheduled Castes] :=.yOrd-erg} Constitution (Scheduled mbes} ordergxisso. therein, therefore, contended thatdenial ofvbenefitsi and the privileges by the State was violative of the Fundamental Rights conferred._oncitizens' ny;vArticles 14, 15(1), 16(2) and"l*9 being contrary to the letter and spirit and 342 of the Constitution. Referring tolthe earlli.er'eCon;stitution Bench judgment in Marri 'Chandra SShekIlia'r.Rqo.'s case. the Apex Court has observed the_Vmi.ddl.e'of*paragraph-- 15 as under:
~. interpretation that the Court must put "on the-relevant constitutional provisions in regard to'S_c1~heduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other I Sbgacleward classes must be aimed at achieving the objective of equality promised to all citizens by the Preamble of our Constitution. At the same .._ VIIVVVV time it must also be realised that the language of clause (1) of both the Articles 341 and 342 is quite plain and unambiguous. It clearly states--'"--. that the President may specify the castes tribes, as the case may be, in relation to.;"e'ac-h;_' ;. State or Union Territory for the purposesof. Constitution. It must also be realised that specifying the castes or tribes tinder "the 76' two articles the Presideritis, in the case' a State, obliged to consult Gvoiiernor of Therefore. when a. class.----is"aspecified" by the President. after Governor of State A, it is difficult to ii'fr1i'cic§rsta?t1ci.i'V_~: how that specification: in-ade that State" can be treated».as5sp--ecification in relationlto any other St:'5ttelllVWh?vé.se it theliresident has not cori.sulted. this specification is not on1ylinlrelation""t:o State whose Governor haspbeen ._co'nsi,ilted but is "for the purposes of .'Co_r1stitiitio~n"" meaning thereby the various _p1'oyisions--. of the Constitution which deal with V . Castes /Scheduled Tribes. The C' .__Constit"ti,tion Bench has, after referring to the debates in the Constituent Assembly relating to 'A ; ,.thes'"e articles, observed that while it is true that a " person does not cease to belong to his caste/ tribe by migration he has a better and more socially free and liberal atmosphere and if sufficiently M"
M26- long time is spent in socially advanced areas, the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging' to a socially disadvantageous community do n_ot~ truncate his growth and the natural talents..otlaii.'»:- :_.
individual gets full scope to biossom Realising that these are problems_ 'bof adjustment it was observed that tl:'iey'mus_t'be'g so balanced in the mosaic oi' the country's that no section or comniunity should ill-icalooselll detriment or disgcontentment. thle'~--.othEer community."
20. Further, the-iifkpex "added to what was stated in Matri Chandra case by observing as follows: .... V S S we that,:_:c'onsiderations for specifying a particular class for inclusion in the list of"S_ched'ule'd lTt3astes/ Scheduled Tribes or cla"sses.«i'n a given State would depend on A {;r1e_}§.at1;fre. and extent of disadvantages and social 3 by that caste, tribe or class in that S ' State may be totally non est in another State to V vvhich "persons belonging thereto may migrate. A. , Coirictidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing * same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the ._2'"jM degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may aisodbge totally different. Therefore, merely because caste is specified in State A as a does not necessarily mean that if therebe--...anothge1' it caste bearing the same nomenclature State the person belonging to":.th<;l"fo'r1ner Awoulid entitled to the rights; ,_privilege's admissible to a member of S theScheduled*Caste_otVthe ' latter State "for the purposes'g'~of*this Co1v1sti.tution". This is an aspect liasgto Sébefkiept in mind and which was V very tl~ie"'l.:fmir1ds of the Constitutiorianakeijs as the choice of language 3.4i:fvv 342 of the Constitutiointg, . . '
21. It "fro'rnTthe' aforementioned ruling of the Apex Court e\fen"'if a mentioned in the Presidential Orderin"1'espect"'ofV_Vth'e State of Karnataka as Scheduled Caste is also mentioried as such in the Presidential Order in respect of another' candidate belonging to that caste cannot claim'~«beneiit.oi' reservation in the State of Karnataka. 'Vhnsiiver to the points raised in this writ petition could been difficult in the light of the two judgments of the "-.:iConstitution Bench of the Apex Court, but for the fact that ii 28 _ considerable arguments are advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent--University Sri Udaya Holla placing reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in case and referring to the nature of the 2" _ University which is established with an object"to::*rnal§e'--Ait national level institute of legal training, stulléiiesc and'-reseiarebni The Zfld respondent--Universityf is a brai'11chil:l"'b'oVf.:'_theBar Council of India Trust. As can seen from preamble to the National Law School;:'_of_ in-filial (Karnataka Act No.22/ I986} earlier a Society' by Law School of India Society registered under ~ihe"'provision:s of the Karnataka Societies object among others to establish}: niaintainf:'V'»a,nd a teaching and research institute of higher 1e-arn:n'g.;fi law conceived the idea and it is _._the Secietyx' Whic_lfi_requested the State Government to AV_esta'oli_s'n,the --l\ia;'tional Law School to enable it to carry out its and"_"_v»fui*ic'tions and therefore the Karnataka State .Legislature considered it necessary to encourage the H 'S Abesitablishrnent of such a national level institute and hence Act was enacted to establish the Law School.
23. __ _ Section 4 of the National Law School of India Act, 1986, deals with the objects of the Law School which reads as under:
"4. The Objects of the School etc.-- (1) The Objects_oi"._the School shall be to advance and disseminate knowledge of law and legal processes and.-A4"tl1eirg:V'role in "
national development. to develop in the student .:and'~res.ea1'ch * V. scholar a sense of responsibility to society Lhevvtielld of law by developing skills in regard"-to :advocacy,_:'lcgalp. legislation, law reforms and-.__the lilcento o:ig'a'niseV lec_tures,_ seminars, symposia and l'eoxr1ferences ._ to hprolinote legal knowledge and to make law. iand"'Jegal processes efiicient instruments of socia-1,_devel-oprnent,~.._ 'hold examination and confer degree and other~i.lacaderriic and to do all such things as are or conducive to the attainment of or 'any the objects 'of"the School. {2} it V'i'iie«Scl1ooi-..S'1*1a1l' be open to all persons of either sexl'-irreispecijvei 'of_rac_el;"».creed, caste of class of all religions and shall not be 'la.virIu1 for the school to impose on any jperson any-test whatsoever of religious belief or profession in orcier to entitle h'i1nto be admitted thereto as a teacher or a C " -» _Vstu,dent«or'*to hold any office therein or to graduate thereat or to to-"exercise any privilege thereof." C24. it norninated as the Chancellor.
of the Act provides that a Judge nominated by Society shall be the Chancellor of the School provided that 'gives his consent the Chief Justice of India shall be Section 8 deals with the ii3QW authorities of the School. The General Council, the Executive Council and the Academic Council are the important bodies and the General Council is the Chief Advisory Bodyfo'f_the School, whereas the Executive Council is the Chief Body of the School and the Academic Council islt-hie _ Body of the School having power" lof"conl;ro1.y tgerierai. regulation for maintaining the standards education and examination of "thei.vbSchool., ls.ui:g}'ec't to other it rules and regulations. can the lcmntplosition of the current Members of I~ion'ble Chief Justice of India' the Cliainnan of the Bar Council faind. "s-evera1""other eminent personalities includingsome' Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of .IKarnataka are the Members of the _ 'General Council: A'Sri,___§ldaya Holla points out that only the Law f':_VlViiniste1*._Aof __ Government of Karnataka, the Advocate General Education Minister of Government of _VKarna'tak'a'.apart from Secretary to Government of Karnataka, lllfiepartment of Higher Education are the only persons who l_j_.replresent the Karnataka Government and all others are drawn if from different walks of life from all over the country, _33_r, particularly from the legal field and therefore the State control over the National Law School is minimal. He, therefore, justifies the reservation for Scheduled Caste Tribe candidates across the country.
25. It is true, the nature and 7:cor;%_ipo'sitilon"' of respondent - University amply'""ieInonvstratesl'l.: dis are' national level institute. the by itself will absolve it from follovvingpthe Order, 1950 in the matter of extendingA...reservation Scheduled Castes and can it extend reservation helonging to Scheduled Castes _ throughout the Country. It cannot beldenied respondent -- University is a creature .. of the State The Karnataka Legislature has 'C llestablishefd this University as a national level institute. It is "al._.so_notl that there is no provision in the Act which requires theCrespondent--Universities to extend the benefit of reservati'on'i~for the purpose of admission to the law course. it is admitted before this Court that the Governing él/A Body of the University has accepted the reservation policy for
-32", Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and has extended it to ail candidates throughout the country. This has practice right from the beginning. Only because has established the 233 respondent--UniVersiiy_,pas,aiinatiunal_ level institute, it cannot be said thatin th'e':na«tter benefit of reservation, the Presidential Iflrder, provisions of Article 341 of the Co--ns"t:£tution*--ea1'i.be iagjiored.
26. If an institution is as.vl'.an_'pi.nstttution of national importance by the__Act of f'1r1St1tut10I1 falls within the four of Iternés in Item Nos.62, 63, 64 & 653 then it will be the to legislation in respect of the sameldapndlifl makes the legislation and provides for a reservation applicable to all the Scheduled zjfsl'Castes;Sched'uled throughout the country, then such an be acceptable by drawing analogies applicablev. Central Institutions such as All India I"-«._._'In.stitute" of; Medical Science, Military Academy at Dehradun other Central Bodies. In the instant case, the 2""
.__"'respéondent-UniVersity is established by State law and it is not m33i, an institution established by the Central law or founded by the Central Government. In that View of the matter, there can be no escape from the mandatory requirement as felt out in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India as held:
Apex Court in the two Constitution Bench judgmeiatlsi Chandra Shekhar Rao and Actionhycorrtmitteé; '~ .i:g;vén is he "
to be held that the State has inv'».;fac;"eestablishjed respondent-University as a *na.t_iona1'-.. level f1':nstitute.} the--_"
reservation for Scheduled and 'Scheduled Tribe candidates have to be as».ficr the Order, 1950 as declared in relationto Q =
27. Learnedxl' _Sri.Udaya Holla has placed strong relliance 3'1 in Pushpa's case to contend that in-the abse.nce».7'of 'provision in the law requiring the "2-W3 'i'espti12dent--Uniyersity to confine status of Scheduled l'C,as'tes' Tribes only to the castes specified in the Presidlentialltjiider, 1950 that is to say to the candidates belonging to the State, there is no prohibition either under 15(4) or 16(4) to extend such reservations to the "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of different States. _34_
28. In Pushpa's case, the question that arose for consideration was whether the selection and appointment made of migrant Scheduled gaste candidates of against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castieeandiidates , the post of Selection Grade Teachershin Pondicherry was legal and valid? The---Central gAdmii1istratii'e"VVt Tribunal (Madras Bench) had lsiiehe and V appointment were illegal' and p canlhe seen from paragraph 6 of the judgment living'; the main contentions urged"hy' --the:_coun.sel'~appeaI§inVg for the appellants before the Apeié: C'ourt'l3iV¢re--:jg':\., (l}_:That1 _<;1e3cisions.'__rendered in Marri Chandra lfiflekhar ;:'elied upon by the Tribunal related vtoacase Where the migrant was from one S " State toanother State (from Andhra Pradesh to S' 3-Mafiarashtrallland it can have no application to a 3 A "vease'»viIli--ere the migration of a Scheduled Caste from a State to an adjoining or Contiguous Union Territory.
t(2}VV"i'hat the Government of India has. from time to time. issued Circulars and Government Orders clearly providing that migrant Scheduled Caste persons were eligible for appointment on posts m35__ reserved for Scheduled Caste persons in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and in the absence of any statutory enactment or ruies made in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,_itiiesej Circulars or Government Orders arc:4':."biVndiiig't "
upon the Government of POIJ1,ChC_herr_sT.:'." " = (3) That right from inception, tram Pondicherry had bx-§eii..__ foliowing Whereunder migrant Scheduiedda persons were held eiigiiile foriiiappvointinent o,n""1'eserved posts which wastythe and uniform policy of the Stateand therefore be heid to begiilegai oij contrary:."to'*i.an_v constitutionai ~ ' provisions: "fl; "--
In the baCk'g1~.oun--.d_ ofijpthteseeontentions, the Apex Court after referringv to 241 of the Constitution of India dealing' I,inion"'I'e'i*1ritoIies, has held in paragraphs 14, 15, ii? o-f»_tiie'jridgment as under:
.514.' effect of these provisions is also that the jiidnunistrator (Lt Governor of Pondicherry} and his pcounciii of Ministers act under the general contro} of and are under an obiigation to comply with any patticuiar direction issued by the President. Further, the Administrator [Lt Governor of Ponciicherry) while acting _ 36 _ under the scope of the authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution would be the Central Government.
15. The Central Government has issued several orders and circulars extending the benefit of candidates of other States in the matter of employment the UT of Pondicherry which need to be .;.
letter was sent by the Joint Secretary, Goveriiment=.of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, t_.o~~th_e Lt_"Goverriorx'o4f:
Pondicherry on 4~2w1974 and .'is"~-be~.inVg_ reproduced below: ....... ..
16. These documents sliogivtthat Pondicherry has throughout beeirproceeding "on,the_loasis that being a Unio1i..4_.'"1'eri'itor5§I,. a.llV._io'rders regarding reservation for SC/ST ;-espemf of postsfiservices under the Central Government"are"atjplicxable. Vjdosts/ services under the Poni3'iVChge'rry'Advininistration as Well. Since all SC/ST .can,didates'--4.vvhgic'i1yhave been recognised as such under the"'ordersVissu--.'_3d the President from time to time irrespective of V-the State/ Union Territory, in relation to . V vvhicl1'e"paert:'.cular castes or tribes have been recognised as V * are eligible for reserved posts / services under the be 2 x"C.entralu_"G_overr1mer1t, they are also eligible for reserved posts;'serv'ices under the Pondicherry Administration.
Consequently, all SC /ST candidates from outside the UT " * Poridicherry would also be eligible for posts reserved for V' -SC'/ST candidates in the Pondicherry Administration. Therefore, right from the inception, this policy is being consistently followed by the Pondicherry Administration M37- whereunder migrant SC/ST candidates are held to be eligible for reserved posts in the Pondicherry Administration.
17. We do not find anything inherently wrong ,or.» any infraction of any constitutional provision in sticli. policy. The principle enunciated in Morn' 'T Shekhar Ran cannot have application here as Pondicherry is not a State. As shown Territory is administered by the .' Administrator appointed by him. ln'the:conteX.tV 246, Union Territories are excliided from the -the"
expression "State" occurring clearly explained by a Constitution Belnchl'in*"T._M.K.anVniyan Vs. ITO. In New Delhi Municipal Clotérictil of Puryab the majority has approved the:'1<atioV__tof:pT.i'l/I. and has held that they-.[Alrii_on [Teri'it_o3riesAl"are_un'otj'$tates for the purposdellvof Conhstiltiition {para 145}. The Tribunal~ has. Vti:§§1egfore.Vl'e.lear1y"erred in applying the ratio of Marti 'Cyhandrct Rao in setting aside the selection and 'app¢.intmeht of migrant SC candidates."
3.«.pAaragraph--.'2'l"llof the judgment, the Apex Court "tt:£é::;tng 341(1) & 342 (1) of the Constitution has obseryed thatigalrticle 16(4) is not controlled by a Presidential Order tested under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the V'Coi1.stit1ution in the sense that reservation in the matter of appointment on posts may be made in a State or Union W 38 W Territory only for such Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which are mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Presidential Order for that particular State or Union Territory. However, without elaborating this aspect further With..reference to the ratio laid down in the Constitution A Marti Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action _-Co':11lri§5.ttee';.y the S"
Apex: Court confined its observation' :1-if paragraph--2l by holding as uns'ier:_p "if a State or Union Teri'3,to1*y It a lfiprovision whereunder the benefit of"reservatio1a.Qis extended only to such Scheduled Castes' 'Tribes which are recognised vsuclffini relation_ to'. State or Union iiseicr:.:a'--.provisiori'lwould be perfectly valid. However,lVltii.-zreil'would'-be no infraction of clause (4) of Article if._a by virtue of its peculiar p_osition=.be'ingV by the President as laid down in ..«}§lrticle 239"'--extends the benefit of reservation even to ., ' Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who llarefiafiotlrrieritioned in the Scheduled to the Presidential for such Union Territory. The UT of l.°i3ori-dicilleny having adopted a policy of the Central _ Government whereunder all Scheduled Castes or , 'Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their State are eligible S for posts which are reserved for SC/ST candidates, no legal infirmity can be ascribed to such a policy and the £7, M39M sarne cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of 59 law.
30. It is thus clear that in Pushpa's case, the .[''Bench Consisting of three Hon'b1e Judges of the Supreme«V.Court'f'i)ehi1e categorically holding that Article 341(1) and :3.-mile» the Constitution cannot come in the Way .of"'l'et%1'ito1°ies by virtue of its peculiar position»A:'«heir1é got/c.rrIed«. President as laid down in from: theft' benefit of reservation to mig:*ant- 'Scheduled. Castes or Scheduled Tribes has net"ex.ten_;iecl isle analogy to the States. There wasfno oecaVsio'b; for\.,the Ape§r'VCourt in the said judgmentto position as the question arose was onlyhurith Gniorl Territory of Pondicherry and not .reference._t'oe.:the State or States. Therefore, the contention of "Udaya.Ho1la, learned Senior Counsel that in spite of law laidclown in the cases of Marri Chandra Shekar and2kctibrl_"_{2o'r}intittee, the Apex Court in Pushpa's case has V . clarified 't'he'p.osition by holding that if the State enacts a law '' reservation to all Scheduled Castes and Scheduled _"I'rifb'esA'across the country, it is not affected by the provisions "contained under Article 341{1} or Article 342(1), cannot be fig _41is consisting of two learned Judges of the Apex Court in the said decision has considered the following questions as can b.e"s.een from paragraph-- 18:
{1} Having regard to the decisions of this Cou_._rtt 1 Chandra Shekar Rao {supra} and '$t1;gg_n {supra}, the specification of a":.'pa-r_tic't1la1*. Tribe to be a Scheduled Caste being in relation to that or U'nioii whether a person onhis migraitiorriito anotherVState would carry the sarne.s'tatta_s (2) Whether in offthe V'oif.V"t'his Court in Action izsrhere the similar Caste haying been declared to be State to which he orig:,ina,E_Iy the State and/ or Union Territcij to 'h:as"'.migrated would make any difference» "the provisions contained in _Aij:ioie 341 of'the___Constitution of India?
-View of the decisions of the 'Constitution it Court in State of Maharashtra vs. i\4?iiIin'd 3: tors. [(2001) 1 sec 4] and E.V.Chinnaiah vs. Vi_state'--'nf AP. :31 ors. [(2005) 1 sec 394] extension of noitification even to a migrant would amount to modification and/or alteration of the notification which is impermissible in law in View of clause {2} of (5) '~32.
'to' 1~'fushpa's case and also the decision in 2004 (1) sec' 53o 'v{C__EIiiXNDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ANOTHER vs. _42s Article 341 and clause [2] of Article 342 of the Constitution of India'?
Whether having regard to the provisions contaiiied it Articles 239 and 239AA of the Constitution he _1:re1a:ien"t r it to Union Territory it is pennissibleé Government to direct I'€Cruit'J:n€I;it,A.1I10"'*--.t.1;1€! it Territory Services treating. it to Cbgetbakin Ceritral Civil Services in view of the-vd:e*cision.s of' Chandigarh Administration Vf_su_p'ra] and .VSAA.l?A1.ifsh;;a (supra)?
Whether the.v.ratio:.A'1aid:*dovvii Court in Chandigarh Qirjininistraaén ."'(su'fira}....:and S.PushQa [supra] consideration the binding ..ijri._:Cor1stitution Bench in ;\_/_I_i_1j_;1__d (su}ira]_ (supra). and M.C.D. vs. Veena & p_1_"_sg"{.(2'O.Oi] would constitute binding precede11t_s'?». ._ A p-a:ragraph;3'6""of the judgment the Apex Court refers é & OTHERS) and raises a question as under:
A it be said that Marri Chandra Shekar Rao does not apply to Union Territory?' and answers it saying 'The answer thereto, in our opinion, is a big emphatic 'no'." 16/ W43-
33. In paragraph-38, the Apex Court further points out as under:
"38. If the principle applied in S.Pusl'a§Vaf"c:".o. {supra} is to be given a logical extension, it wi1.l leadlff to an absurdity, that the Scheduled Castes-~Order"in a State brought under the control ofthe Pre-s:ifde_i1.tVV"'l'l under Article 356 could be altered'.A_AbylC virtue--.of..
notification issued in pursuance ofArticle"v:l6'.{e4}--..eeof the Constitution. Clause Article. jiiévl ofbithe Constitution, as noticed hereir_ibef'or_e, cannot be made applicable for the benefit of reservation for Scheclultfd Scheduled Tribes in 2;; "State or Union» Tei*1'itQI.'jf. who have migratedtoC.f'Vano'll:ie1<.:vState_ ohrmllnion Territory and they are not .the."'rneinbersV..-of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes'.
[By virt'ue._._._of Article 341, the Presidential _ CA under clause (1) thereof acquire an But for Articles 341 and 342 of Consititlution, it would have been possible for thehtlnion and the States, to legislate upon, or .. frarnerfiolicies. concerning the subject of reservation, r\_3'is}'a~vis inclusion of Castes/Tribes. The presence of lfArticles 338. 338A, 341, 342 in the Constitution clearly preclude that."
W44-
34. The Apex Court has gone on to observe in paragraph--/~10 as under:
"Both the Central Government and Government indisputably maymlay dovvn"' decision in regard to reservationihaving iggn'-d.. Articles 15 and 16 of the Consdtitution of. it such a policy cannot violate oth'cr__ provisions. A policy cannof~..gave_ 'over the constitutional _ _ If for the purposes v?_;..4ll1~.and 342 of the Constitution the Union Territory par: on the 'of: ad rninsitrative ex1'gibi=i1i'tyV_V.."'--o:r"" the administrative pQwer,_lt.he :'consti.tntionlal-----v.int'erdict contained in clause or-clause (2) of Article 342 of the Constitutionvéofyiliidia cannot be got rid of."
furtiier goes"on"to observe in paragraph--4i that 'any po'licy decision. thus, must satisfy the constitutionalffrefquirements laid down under Articles 341 and 342 of' theponstitution of India. If any other construction is policy decision having regard to the decisions of this vvill have to be treated as a proviso appended to clause of Article 341 of the Constitution of India and would ".46..
Court in a large number of decisions including Three Judge Bench decisions. Pushpa, "thereforefv could not have ignored either Marri Shekhar Rao or other decisions following 'V' only on the basis of an adrninistrative...,c_ii=cular _ issued or otherwise and n1ore"'s.og_ Constitutional scheme as containedliii"clause 7 A Articles 341 and 342 of .t;he__ Constitutions.'ovTi§ri§1gia putting the State and Union.
bracket.
Following Dayllangand vtlilerefore, we are of the opinion that in is an obiter and lay ratio."
37. Sri Udaya S:enior:§Counse1 however placing certain auth_o1*itiesVbevfore' has contended that even if the observations case are to be considered as obiter as deo.lared the Apex Court, the obiter is also 'binding den" this' already stated above, the question "that._gr¢i11 'co'n.si1deration in Pushpcrs case is the binding nature of i'..--Clentra1 Government direction followed by the C"-'..__Union 'I'eVifi?:tory of Pondicherry in extending the status of Caste and Scheduled Tribe to candidates belonging the States outside Pondicherry located contiguous to M48"
and circumstances of the present case, the 2"" respondent- University could not have extended reservation 3 litori._the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of _ ignoring the Presidential Order, 1950 declarin.g_c:ertai-n castes--«.. as Scheduled Castes and Scheduledflfihes of Karnataka.
39. This will now take us to tolfiwhat will be the effect of this ordenan already made. Respondents-5 to havleheieii.aldtrlitteei they belonged to Scheduled 'other only after their admission, filed. After filing the present 0' apgalicaflon is filed seeking amendmer;«tJlo'f fietitiorfchallenging their selection and admission as l"Well.t Neariyltiisio months have lapsed since the l'admissio11A---sis mnadeo" Asrightly contended by Sri Aditya Sondhi Slearned appearing for some of the students, the fact that'adlmis_silons}of these respondents were made pursuant to 'policies followed since long and that there Was absolutely no rifiisreoresentation on their part in this regard and further that have been so selected based on their merit, cannot be liglnored. Since 07.07.2009 these respondents have been
-50,"
also in the University, it is open for it to take recourse to the same. At this stage, it is necessary to observe that the petitioner has approached this Court before the completed. In fact, the petitioner had sought order and this Court did not grantnanp in_terirn'iiliorderfonly because the 2%' respondent--Univers'ity Court at the time of prelirninary hearing_pthat':._;Vadmission process which was otherwise oper1i'even_p on th'e--.s_a1pg17 date was reportedly advanced and lcoxmplete-ii} } it
40. In .the resuit.?_l3oth::_the appli.cati_ons__p:tjiled for amendment and impleadingCla;re"ailo\Iveds';'.-- , A'l:l""e.ti:tior1VerV«to file amended copy of Memorandunirof.Writ«.Pet.iti'on forthwith. This Writ Petition is allowed in'p_a1'"t, {a} _ Ituist-.ord'eredV'th.at the 2?" respondent--National Law 3choolll'of""lVndia University cannot extend the v'yst.at'us of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe to it "*4:l'cVan.didates hailing from other States or areas the Constitution (Presidentiail Order, 1950 issued in relation to the State of Karnataka; 'C(13) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to admit the daughter of the petitioner to the five year Law