Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State, supported the legality and validity of the impugned G. Os. He disputed the correctness of the various legal contentions urged by the petitioners. He submitted that the M. R. Commission did not exceed its scope of reference, and even if it did, it does not affect the validity of the Government Orders issued on that basis. He submitted that the requirement of laying the Report before the House within a period of six months from the date of its submission, contemplated by S. 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, is only directory and not mandatory. In any event, it was open to the Government to treat the said Report as relevant material for taking action under Arts. 15(4) and 16(4). The delay of about four years does not also affect the efficacy, or the relevance of the report; the subject-matter of enquiry is not a passing or a temporary phenomenon but a permanent problem, it is contended. The learned Additional Advocate-General contended further that just as in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is open to the Government to provide reservations for Backward Classes proportionate to their population in the total population; the said basis has been recognised by more than one decision of the Supreme Court. So far as the basis upon which the M. R. Commission has arrived at the population of Backward Classes at 52% of the total population is concerned, the learned Addl. Advocate General placed certain material before us and contended that the said conclusion is a fairly correct estimate. In the absence of caste-wise census figures, it can only be an estimate, and as an estimate, the determination approximates to the true position. Even if there is a difference of 2% to 3%, it is not a ground for this Court to interfere with the same. Indeed, the learned Addl. Advocate-General contended, it is permissible for the State to provide reservation more than the proportion of Backward Classes in the total population. With respect to the income ceiling prescribed in Cl. 17 of G. O.Ms. No. 166, he submitted, that it is a fair and reasonable limit. He conceded that in the note file there is no consideration by any body of this aspect, but the Cabinet considered this question. He placed certain material before us to justify the said ceiling and stressed the desirability and necessity of placing such income ceiling. With respect to the categorisation of Backward Classes into five sub-groups and barring interchangeability among them (Cl. 16 of G.O.Ms. No. 166), he contended that once the said categorisation is held to be unobjectionable, there can be no valid grievance against the provision barring interchangeability. Inasmuch as these various sub-groups are at different levels of advancement, the impugned provision is designed to prevent the more advanced sub-groups among backward classes from knocking away the benefits meant for other sub-groups; the unfilled posts or offices will be thrown open at the end of third year to the general candidates. Lastly, coming to the allegation of mala fides, the learned Addl. Advocate General's submission was that it has not been substantiated, and, further, that even if it is held that it was done with a view to pre-empt the Tirupati Conference, there is nothing wrong in it, legally speaking. The correctness of other legal and factual contentions also was disputed by him.

44. The Commission has arrived at the said finding in paras 2.12 and 2.13 in Chap. II of its Report. It is conceded by all that these are the only two paras relevant in this behalf, and that no other part of the Report deals with this aspect. It would, therefore, be appropriate, in our opinion, to extract both the said paras in full :

(contd. on col. 2) "2.12. Now it would be necessary to have an estimate of the population of Backward Classes who expect justice from the State Government. To-day there is no census for Backward Classes caste-wise. We can get statistics of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddists, Jains from the census figures. However, it would be necessary for the purpose of the report to arrive at the percentage of the Backward Classes in the State. The methodology followed by the Mandal Commission in its report on page 56 is adopted here. Mandal Commission has first estimated the total percentage of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Later they took the figures of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddists and Jains which are available from the census report. They have estimated the Forward Caste population at about 17.5%. By deducting from the total population the population of these categories, the Mandal Commission arrived at the percentage of other Backward Classes which according to them is 43.7%. To this, they have added roughly half of the percentage of their religious groups, viz., Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddists, Jains considering them as backward and arrived at the percentage of Backward Classes in the total population of India which is placed at 52%. In Andhra Pradesh State, adopting the same procedure the population of Backward Classes is worked out below.

45. As observed by the M. R. Commission in the said two paras, no caste-wise census figures are available to Backward Classes (sic) since last more than 50 years; the last-caste-wise census took place in 1921/1931, whereafter such caste-wise census took place in 1921/1931, whereafter such caste-wise enumeration was stopped. Only the population of SCs/STs. and non-Hindus (Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddists and Jains) are separately shown. All others are shown as Hindus only, without indicating their caste or denomination. The M. R. Commission says that, in the above circumstances, it has followed the methodology followed by the Mandal Commission at page 56 of its Report. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the methodology followed by the Mandal Commission.

48. Before examining the correctness of the said methodology and figures, we think it necessary to emphasise that, in the absence of caste-wise census figures, it is not possible to determine the precise population of backward classes (whether adopting the list of Backward Classes contained in G.O.Ms. No. 1793, or the list recommended by the M.R. Commission, or the list contained in G.O.Ms. No. 166, as the case may be). It can be done only in the case of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or non-Muslims. Regarding Backward Classes or "Forward Castes", it can only be an estimate. (Anantaraman Commission had adopted 1921 figures for Telangana area). We may also say that we are not sitting as an appellate authority over the Report of the M.R. Commission. We can interfere only if it is established that the figure arrived at by the M.R. Commission is quite unreasonable and wide off the mark, so that the said figure could never have been taken as the basis for determining the percentage of reservation for backward classes. Any small variation of, say 2% or 3%, would not matter, for such variation may be inherent in any estimate in the given circumstances.