Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. So far as the question in respect of discrimination between Central and State list OBCs is concerned, it is argued by relying on various provisions that firstly this argument is beyond the relief claimed and beyond pleadings. Secondly that the State OBC and Central list OBCs are different classes in itself and there is a difference between the purpose of two classes. A particular community which has not faced handicapped due to Social and educational backwardness in a substantial area of the Country is not recognized as Central OBC on that ground or on any other ground, is not granted reservation for services under the Central Government. They can avail the reservation and concessions under the State Government concerned which has recognized him as OBC. It is argued that as per Article 342-A of the Constitution of India, Central and State OBCs are different classes and have been dealt with differently in the Constitution and they do not meet at any point of time. The attempt of learned senior counsel for the petitioners in getting the two categories to meet at one single point is totally unsustainable and is beyond the Constitutional scheme. Heavy reliance is placed on the explanation as contained in Article 342-A of the Constitution of India and it is contended that which community has to be recognized as OBC by the Central Government is in the domain of the authority stipulated as such under Article 342-A of the Constitution of India and it is beyond the scope of judicial review and that this Court should not issue any direction which would amount to recognition of State OBC as a Central list OBC which is not as per Constitutional Scheme because no community can be directly or indirectly recognized as Central OBC which has not been placed at Central List.

46. The aforesaid anomaly was sought to be corrected by the Parliament by enacting 102nd amendment to the Constitution of India by which Article 342A, 338-B and 366(26C) were inserted. By way of Article 342-A as was initially enacted by the 102nd amendment of the Constitution in the year 2018, it had only two sub-clauses i.e. 342A (1) & (2). The originally enacted Article 342A by 102nd amendment gave competence only to the President to specify the SEBCs in relation to that State or Union Territory. Article 342-A(2) further empowered the Parliament to include or exclude from the Central List of SEBCs any particular backward class. For the first time the definition of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (or OBC) was also engrafted in the Constitution of India by 366 (26C) and by Article 338-B the National Commission for Backward Classes was given constitutional functions as contained therein. The aforesaid provisions as enacted initially by the 102nd amendment are as under:-

47. The aforesaid amendment was put to test before the Supreme Court in the case of Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 8 SCC 1 (popularly known as Maratha reservation case). The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held by majority that now the competence to notify SEBCs for the purpose of Constitution as per Article 342-A would only be with the authority which will prepare the list which would be notified by the President as per Article 342A (1). This triggered the Parliament to enact the 105th amendment to the Constitution of India because by the aforesaid Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court the power of the State Governments to notify a particular class or community as SEBC (or OBC) was taken away. It was in that backdrop that 105th amendment to the Constitution of India was enacted whereby various amendments were made by inserting proviso to Article 338-B, inserting explanation to Article 342-A(2), insertion of new clause i.e. Article 342-A(3) so also amendment in the definition as contained in Article 366(26C). The amended provisions are as under:-

49. Thus, by Article 342A(3) the entries in the State list would be by the State and for its own purpose of the State. Therefore, the Article 342-A as it now stands clearly provides a parallel structure whereby the State Government or the concerned Union Territory would notify a caste or community as OBC for its own purpose and the Central Government will notify a caste or community in Central List for the purposes of the Central Government. The purpose of these two separate lists is distinct and separate. Central List is for the Central Government and State list is for the State Government. The castes and communities contained in the two respective lists, as per Constitutional scheme, do not come together and have been kept distinct and separate by the bare language of Article 342-A. In fact, the very purpose of 105th amendment was to confer the power on the State Governments to notify a particular caste or community as SEBC (or OBC) for its own purpose because by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (supra) it was interpreted that Article 342-A has taken away the said power. The very purpose of this 105th amendment was to retain power with the States to maintain their own lists, which may be different from the State lists.