Holding

The reduction of the petitioners' quota to 20% and the allocation of a 50% reservation to pre‑ and post‑1942 settlers are constitutionally valid and do not violate Articles 14 or 15(4), with adequate provision for merit candidates.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the Central Government's revised quota system for higher‑education and public‑employment seats in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which reduced the 10‑year‑education locals' reservation from 35% to 20% and restored a 50% reservation for pre‑ and post‑1942 settlers. The petitioners argued that the reduction violated Articles 14 and 15(4) of the Constitution and that no specific merit quota was provided. The Court held that the pre‑ and post‑1942 settlers constitute a distinct, socially and educationally backward class deserving greater reservation, and that the petitioners' category, being more affluent, does not merit a larger share despite its numerical size. It further observed that reservation need not be proportional to population and that the order contains adequate provisions for unfilled seats to be allotted to merit candidates. Consequently, the reduction of the petitioners' quota and the 50% reservation for the settlers were upheld as constitutional, and the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the reduction of the quota for "locals with 10 years education" from 35% to 20% violates Articles 14 and 15(4) of the Constitution.
Whether granting a 50% reservation to pre‑1942 and post‑1942 settlers is constitutionally permissible.
Whether the order fails to provide a proper merit quota in compliance with the 50% ceiling principle.
Whether reservation can be based on the proportion of a category's population.
Whether the classification of categories is reasonable and non‑arbitrary under the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.15(4), s. Art.16, s. Art.19(1)(g), s. Art.21, s. Art.240(1)(a), s. Art.340

Subjects

ReservationQuotaAndaman and Nicobar IslandsArticle 14Article 15(4)Merit candidatesBackward classesPublic employmentHigher educationProportional representation

Judgment

PARENTS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JANUARY 28, 2000
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND CJ, M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND
V.N. KHARE, JJ.]

Constitution of India-Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(l)(g) and 21--Reservation
of Quota-Andaman and Nicobar Island-Allotment of seats for higher C
education and public employment/appointment-Categorisation into (i)
Tribals, (ii) Deputationists and Central Government employees, (iii) Pre-1942
Settlers, (iv) Post-1942 Settlers, (v) Settlers who put in 10 years of education
in the Island, (vi) Merit candidates-Quota of category (v) reduced from 35%
to 20% and that of category (iii) and (iv) together increased from35% to
50o/o-Writ petition filed against reduction of quota in category D
(v)-Held,validity of quota to be considered on the basis of Alt. 14 and not
Art. 15(4)-f're and Post;-1942 Settlers, socially and educationally backr;ard
and cannot be equated to settlers who had put in JO years of educaticm in the
Island as they are voluntary migrants being socially and educationally ad-
vanced- -Reduction of quota in category (v) and increase of quota in category E
(iii) and (iv) justified in view of historical background-Art. 14 orArt. 15(4)
or any provision of the Constitution not violateti----Central Government to
review the position periodically.

Constitution of India-Article 1.f-Reservation-No reservation based
on population in a particular category can be carved out. F

Constitution of India-ATticle I~eservation-Provision for merit
candidatel~ -Unutilised quota to go to merit candidates-Held, normally
reservation cannot exceed 50% of quota and rest must go to merit candidates.
G
The population of Andaman antl Nicobar Islands consists of four
• categories; trlbals, pre-1942 settleFS, post-1942 settlers and settlers who
have put in 10 years education there. The petitioners belong to the last
category. Quotas were fixed from time to time in relation to allotment
of seats for higher education and public employment/appointment. H
429
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2G00j 1 S.C.R.
A The Central Government framed six categories viz. (i) tribals, (ii)
Deputationists and Central Government employees (iii) Pre-1942 settlers
(iv) Post-1942 settlers (v) Settlers who put in 10 years education in the
island (vi) Merit candidates. The writ petitioners belong to category (v)
and the impugned order fixed their quota at 20% and that of category
B (iii) and (h) together at 50%. This order, formulating a fresh quota
system, was passed in accordance with the directions of the Calcutta
High Court, which had quashed a previous order of the Lt. Governor
which fixed the quota of the 11etitioners category at 35% and that of
category (iii) and (iv) together at 35%.

c The petitioners in the present writ petitions contended that reduc-
tion of the quota from 35% to 20% for their category violated Articles 14
and 15 of the Constitution, thalt pre and post 1942 settlers could not be
given 50% quota; and that no quota was provided for merit candidates.

D Dismissing the writ petition, this Court

HELD : 1. The pre-1942 settlers and post-1942 settlers belong to a
separate category and have to be considered as backward socially and
educationally next only in degree to the tribals. They struggled bard over
several decudes to make the Islands habitable and suffered torture during
E the Japanese occupation in 1942-43. They, by no stretch of imagination,
can be equated with the petitioners' category which consists of those who
voluntarily migrated to the islands for business or other careers and are
more advanced socially and educationally. In view of the historical back-
ground there was ample justification for the Central Government to
F restore 50% quota for the pre and post 1942 settlers. ~444-E-F; H]
2. Merely because the petitioners are more in number, they cannot
claim a larger percentage of reservation. No such reservation based on
population can be carved out, even if the petitioner's category consists of
57% of the student population. It is not possible to give them a higher
G quota compared to the pre-194:2 and post-1942 settlers who were identified
as backward both socially and economically. [445-E]
.
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, [19921 Suppl. 3 SCC 217, relied on.

3.1. The Central Government considered the facts revealed in the
H survey, submissions of all groups and the historical basis of the reserva-
PARbNTS ASSOCIATION v. U.O.l. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 431

tion of 50% in favour of the pre-1942 and post-1942 settlers. It kept in mind A
that the petitioners are affiuent and more advanced-educationally and
socially. The impugned order does not suffer from any irrationality as all
relevant facts have been considered and no irrelevant facts were taken into
consideration. [445-F-G]

3.2. The reduction of quota for the petitioners from 35% to 20% was B
perfectly justified and that the prescription of 50% for the pre and post
1942 settlers was equally justified. There was no violation of Articles 14
or 15(4) or any other provision of the Constitution. [445-H]

4.1. Normally reserved categories cannot exceed 50% of the quota
and the rest must go to merit candidates, but on the peculiar facts of the
c
case, the present classification and quota does not offend the said prin·
cip!e. [446-C]

4.2. The impugned order specifically provided that the unutilised
quota from all other categories would go to merit candidates. Adequate D
provision has been made in favour of merit candidates. [446-E]

5. The Central Government has to review the position periodically
to find. out if the members of the reserved categories are able to get
selection in sufficient numbers and also whether a reasonable percentage
is going to merit candidates. [446-H] E
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 418 of
1996.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
F
K. Sukumaran, S.B. Sanyal, P.P. Malhotra, M.C. Bhandare, Dushyant
Qave, R.K. Jain, Soli J. Sorabjee, AK. Srivastava, Tapas Ray, Ms. Sangeeta
Kumar, Ashwani Garg, S.C. Ghosh, Ranjan Mukherjee, Salish Vig, S.
Wasim A. Quadr~ P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, D.S. Mehra,
Vijay Kumar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Shyarnali Ganguli, S.K. Das, B.K. G
Ghosh, Balai Roy and M.S. Ganesh for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. JAGA."INADHA RAO, J. This writ petition is filed by the Parents'
Association of Ten years Students, Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Port H
432 sePREME COURT REPORTS [2C00) 1 S.C.R.
A Blair) (hereinafter called Ten Yea.rs Category) and om: P. Pratapan, Port
Blair. The respondents ar the Union of India, represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the Secretary, Minister of
Human Resources and Development (respondents l(a) and l(b), the Lt.
Governor (respondent 3) and the Secretary (Education) (Respondent 4)
B of the Andman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair.

The petitioners fik:d the above Writ Petition (under order t, Rule 8,
C.P.C.), seeking to set aside tht proceedings of the Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs dated 14.2.84, 4.9.91, 30.5.96 as bt:ing violatiw of
Articles 14, 15. 16, 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Din:ctions
C Wt;;re sought for framing Consolidated Regulations under Article 240(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India in rdation tu allotment of seats for higher
educational courses (professional and technical) and for public employ-
ment/appointment for all permanent residt:nts of the Islands, in conformity
with Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, to redefine 'local'
D and 'permannt resident' by removing all discrimination on the basis of
race, descent, placL of birth etc. to divide the entire community of school
leaving students/permanent resident into two categories (i) Tribals and (ii)
others subject to the conditions that tht:y have studied for ten years in the
Island and passed the qualifying examination from schools in the Island
and not to giw executive instructions.
E
The facts of the case are as follows :

In the Andaman and Nicobar Island,, there are sewral categories of
persons residing - (i) tribals (ii) those who settled there prior to 1942 (iii)
others who settled after 1942 under rehabilitation schemes and (iv) those
F who have gon.. to the island for business or professional purposes and who
have put in 1) years education. The writ petitioners belong to the last of
these categories. As to who are the pre 1942 settkrs and post 1942 settlers
we shall explain later.

G Quotas wen: fixed for the above said categories of persons under
various orders, from time to time, for purpose of admission to Engineer-
ing/Medical etc. seats. These seats are reserved in various colleges in the
Indian mainland from time to time.

We may make it clear, even at the outset, that the 'quotas' fixed in
H the various proceedings, except the quota fm:d for Tribals, do not fall
t-

PARENTS ASSOCIATION v. U.OJ.[M.JAGANNADHARAU.J.] 433

under Article 15(4) at all. The question of the validity of the quotas for the A
Central Governmt:nt servants, the prt:-1942 and post 1942 settlers and the
10 year old is to be considered on the basis of Article 14 and not under
Article 15(4).

The impugned order of the Central Government is dated 30.5.96 and
refors to the quotas fixed from time to time, namely, by the notifications
B
of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 73.81, 4.9.91, then to criteria fixed
by the Supreme Court's interim order dated 6.8.1993, and finally to the
criteria fixed by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration on 23.4.94 and
by the Lt. Governor on 6.8.94. the order of the LL Governor dated 6.8.94
was quashed by the Calcutta High Court. Then the Central Government c
passed the order dated 30.5.96 and formulated fresh quota system for
various categories and the said quotas are now impugned in this writ
petition. The relevant categories have been classified in the impugned
order as follows :

(i) Tribals D

(ii) Deputationists and Central Government Employees

(iii) Pre 1942 - Settlers
E
(iv) Post 1942 - Settlers under re-settlement Schemes

(v) Other locals with 10 years education in Islands (The writ
petitioners belong to this category and this category is clas-
sified as category (iv) in the impugned notification dated
30.5.96 F
(vi) Merit candidates.

and various percentages of quotas have been fixed. However, no specific
quota has been fixed for the 'merit candidates'.
G
It will be advantageous to refer to the quotas fixed from time to time
in the earlier orders of the Central Government, and in the interim order
of the Supreme Court dated 6.8.93 and by the Lt Governor of the Islands
and the quotas now fixed in the present impugned order dated 30.5.96 of
the Central Government. They are as follows : H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.

A Categ Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria
ory approved approved as per as per a:,: per f.xed by
of byMHA byMHA Supreme order of urder of \1HA on
reside on 7.3.81 on 4.9.91 Court's A&~ A&:-1 30.5.96
nts order dt. admn. admn.
6.8.~3 dated dated
25.4.94 6.8.94
B (1) (2) (3) (4) ~5) (6)

[. Tribals 20% 20%

II. Deputation- 10% 5UC10 50'/o lOS~ 10%
ists and (For (For
Central category category
Govt. II II
c Employees

IJI. Pre 1942 50% (for 50% (For Ill Ill 17.SU~'O 50% (For
categorty category IV IV (For category
settlers Ill and lJI and and and category Ill and
IV) IV) V) V) lll) IV)
IV. Settlers in 17.50%
D resettlement for
schemes category
after 1942 IV
V. Other locals 20% 20% 35% 20c;"o
with 10 yrs. for for for for
education in category category category category
Island v v v v
E 30%
VI. Merit 30%

Total 100% HKl% ltJ% ICO% 10w1.; 100%

• The definition of Central Government Employees changed to
F include only central Government employees with transfer liability
to serve outside the UT Administration. The Central Government
employees having no transfer liability to serve outside the UT
Admn. were included in Category V.

G •• The Supreme Court's order stated that ''50% shall be distributed
proportionately in accordance with the breakup indicated m
categories 2, 3 and 4 in the order dated 4th september, 1991".

•" • Included deputationists, Central Government Employees and
H others who were not Ill any other category.
PARENTSASSUCIATIONv. U.O.I.[M.JAGANNADHARAO,J.] 435

lt will be seen from the above tabular statement that in various A
proceedings, the local Tribals of the Islands (Category I) have been given
a quota of 20% seats. In the proceedings dated 7.3.81, 4.9.96 of the Central
Government and the proceedings of the Lt. Governor dated 6.8.94 and in
the impugned order of the Central Government dated 30.5.96, 10% seats
are reserved fur the deputationists and Central Government Employees.
There is no dispute before us regarding these quotas.
B

The writ petitioners are, as aln.:ady stated, the "other locals with 10
years education in tht: Island" (category v). In the t:arlier orders of the
Central Government dated 7.3.81 and 4.9.91, this category was given a
quota of 20% of the seats but the said percentage was increased to 35% C
and the quota for the pre-1942 and post 1942 settlers was reduced by the
Lt. Governor in his orders dated 6.8.94. That was quashed by the Calcutta
High Court. After a fresh survey, the Central Government has now passed
the impugned order on 30.5.96 and reduced the 35% quota of the
petitioners' category to 20% and brought back the 50% quota for the D
pre-1942 and post 1942 settlers. This is the cause of action for the writ
petition.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners Sri K. Sukumaran
contended that the reduction of the quota for the petitioners category from
35% to 20% was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, E
that the pre and post 1942 settlers could not have been given 50% quota
and tliat in the impugned order of the central Government dated 30.5.96,
no provision was made for merit quota and this was not permissible.

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the Central Govern- F
ment Sri P.P. Malhotra and the other lerned senior counsel Sri S.B. Sanyal
and Sri M.C. Bhandare supported the above order of the Central Govern-
ment.

The following points arise for consideration :
G
(1) whether the reduction of quota for the "locals with 10 years
education· from 35% tu 20% is illegal or otherwise vitiated?

(2) Whether the provisions fur 50% quota for the pre and post 1942
settlers suffers from any legal infirmity"/ H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] l S.C.R.
A (3) whether the impugned order has not made any provision for merit
candidates'!

Point I and 2 :

We shall initially refer to the various orders passed by the Central
B Government from time to time and to the various orders of the Calcutta
High Court passed ;;arlier.

On 7.3.81, the Central Government made certain categorisation and
fixed certain quotas as shown in the Table. The same were revised again
C on 29.2.88 by the C1:ntral Government (not shown in the Table). The said
order dated 29.2.88 of the Central Government was challenged in CR No.
5321(W)/1988 \n thL Calcutta High Court. M.K. Mukherjee, J. (as he then
was) in his judgmnet dated 18.7.90 while upholding the policy of the
Central Government in fixing quotas for students of differLnt categorits
including the 'local born' in view of their economic and educational bac'.\-
D wardness, how.:ver observed that "while considering the case of those with
10 years education in the Islands, there was no justification in excluding
their students who may have also a minimum of 10 years continuous
education in the Island and passed the school examination''. It was ob-
served that thL definition of 'local candidate' contained in the order dated
E 14.2.84 should be amended so as to include such students.
Thereafter, Ms. Ruma Pal, J. in C.0.9115(W) of 1991 passed certain
orders on 11.6.91 but recalled the same on 9.8.91. The learned Judge
obseved that it Wc!S not clear whetliler the Central Government had passed
fresh orders in the light of the judgment of M.K. Mukherjee, J (as he then
F was).

It was at, that stage that the Central Government passed orders dated
4.9.91 fixing Vdl'iolll> quotas (referred to in the Tabular Statement). These
quotas were modified by the Lt. Governor on 25.4.84 by reducing the
percentage fixed for the pre-1942 settlers and post-1942 settlers (under
G schemes). This order dated 25.4.84 was quashed by Tarun Chatterjee, J. in
C.O. 78(w) of 1994 dated 27.7.94 on the ground of violation of principles
of natural justice, inasmuch as the pre and post 1942 settlers were not
heard before reducing their quota. Then:after the Lt. Governor passed a
fresh order d<tted 6.8.94 after hearing the affected parties. The said order
H was again challenged in CO 11514(W) of 1995 by the 'Local Born
PARENTS ASSOCIATION v. V.O.L IM. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.; 437

Association'. Samaresh Banerjee, J. in an elaborate judgment dated 31.1.96 A
after n:ferring to the history of the litigation, quashed the said order of the
Lt. Governor dated 6.8.94, giving various reasons. It will be necessary to
briefly refer to the said reasons.

The learned Judge while stating that there was no need to go into
the question of the jurisdiction of tht: Lt. Governor to modify the orders
B
of the Central Government dated 4.9.91, observed that it was obvious that
Lt. Governor's orders dated 6.8.94 were 'adhoc' or tentative and were
meant only for the then 'current" academic year. It was held that the Lt.
Governor\ orders making a tentative decision was contrary to the direction
of Tarun Chatterjee, J. that a final order was to be passed. It was also c
observed that even the interim arrangement has been made on incomplete
data". This was dear from the fact that the Lt. Governor had himself held
that there was no upto date and that data had to be gathered by a fresh
survey. If that was so, the Lt. Governor had no material even to make a
tentative decision. The Lt. Governor had 'not come to any finding in the D
order as to how the quota or percentage of reservation - which was lastly
revised in the year 1991- cannot be said to be equitable". The Lt. Governor
had not stated why the earlier order of the Central Uovernment of the yt:ar
1991 was int:quitable. The Lt Governor ''has not at all applied his mind to
the represenatives of the present petitiont:rs against the reduction of their
E
quota". The "entire exercise which has been made by the Lt. Governor by
giving hearing to diffcrt:nt parties pursuant to the direction of Tarun
Chatterjee, J. was a futility as no final decision has at all been taken based
on relevant materials'. On the above grounds, Samaresh Banerjee, J.
quashed the Lt. governor's orders dated 6.8.94 and remitted the matter to
the Central Government. Thereafter, the present order dated 30.5.96 was F
passed.

We shall now refer to the reasons upon which the present decision
of the Central Government datt:d 30.5.96 is based.
G
The prt:sent order takt:s into account the fmdings of the survey
regarding 'student population', a factor which was treated as relevant in
the judgments of tht: Calcutta High Court rendered by M.K. Mukherjee,
J. (as he then was) and by Tarun Chattt:rjee, J. as stated t:arlier. The facts
rt:vealed from the Survey of student were set out in the order as follows : H
438 SlJPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] l S.C.R.
·1 - --
ICategory
· - - T - - - - ·-- -·-- ----·
A r Precentage of
I No. of students I total no. of

-1· -- ·----.--··- -t-
I. Tribals 5850
---t· students
7.61
II. . Central Government I 4257 5.54
B Employees, deputationists I
I and othen. not covered in
: any category but completed II

two years of education from
I schools in the territory I
c _n_I. IPre 1942 s:ttle_rs_ __ -t _ 7408 ----1- 9.64
IV. ·Settlers in re-settlt:ment I 14796 19.25
_ ~chemes after 1942___ - t - J_
I
D --iIV.

VI
Other locals with 10 yrnrs
education in islands . _
Others having education in
1
. __
43931
-f ______
57.15

islands for less than two 628 I 0.82

-
year
~ -·-
..
1
_... _l
The Central Government then obs.:rved that there was no dispute
E between the parties in regard to the 20% quota for tribals. The Central
Government then referred to the contt:ntions of (i) The Andaman and
Nicobar Administration (ii) Local Born Associations (\ii) the Bengal As-
sociation (iv) Pan:nt Association, 10 yt:ars catt:gory (writ petitiont:rs) and
(v) tht: Harbour workers Engineers Association. The Central Government
F obserwd :

"From the above averm1~nts, the following points emerge :
A & N Islands are an c:xtremely backward area because of there
remoteness and under development. This is a total lack of higher
education facilities in the Islands and hence the studt:nts from
G there have to depend on tht: reservations providt:d in tht: mainland.
Therefore, tht: system of rest:rvations has to continues for all
pennanent residents of the Islands.'

Then the Central Government ob~t:rvcd that, no doubt, no investiga-
H tion had bt:en carried out under Artich: 340 by appointing a Commission
PARENTS ASSOCIATION v. U.O.I. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.j 439

to investigate into the conditiom of backward classes in the island, socially A
and educationaUy but the fact remained that there was much backwardness
among tht: pt:rmanent residents of the Island. The order then stated :

'As a Wdfare State, we must ensure that orders issued in n:gard
to reservation cover the entin: population of the island territory
which do1.:s not have the requisite facilities for higher education." B

It then referred to the contention of the A & N Administration pleading
for a specific rest:rvation of 30% for general merit, then to the contention
of the Local Born Association that 20% be reserved fur tribals and 50%
for the pre & post 1942 settlers and 30% for merit. It also referred to the C
plea of (writ petitioners), the "Parents Association of Ten years Students"
that except reservation for tribals other reservations would be bad and
also to the fact that in the interim order of the Supreme Court dated
6.8.93, 30% were reserved for merit. After confirming 20% quota for
tribals, the Central Government stated that though 20% of seats were
earmarked for tribals as per the 1981 and 1991 orders, the actual utilisa- D
tion of the said quota was low. For example, the student population of
tribals was 7.61 % (Class I to XI) but their representation in class XII was
only 2.77%. The position during 1992 to 1996 was no different for which
the figures were as follows :
·-·----- - - - .. - · - - -· --- - E
Total No. of seats No. of seats Percentage of
.- Year available from actually utilised by seats utilised by
A&'.'1 Admn. tribals Tribals
1 2 3 4
1992-93 196 7 3.5 F
1993-94 190 5 2.63
1994-95 209 8 3.82
1995-96 188 8 4.25
(Col. 4 shows that the 20% quota was never utilised by the tribals)
·-·---- G
The Central Government stated that though "60 B.E. seats in 1993-94 and
52 B.E. seats in 1994-95 were available, no tribal candidate was actually
awarded any B.E. seat. But, ewn so, the Government of India now thought
it fit to maintain 20% quota for tribals, and directed that the unfilled quota
may go to the merit candidates. The order stated as follows : H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2CCOj I S.C.R.

A "Subject to the condition that the seats which are not actually
utilised by Tribals will be diverted to general category open to all
the residents of the A& N Islands, irrespective of any classification
and will be filled up purely on basis of merit." •
The Central Government then observed that the pre-1942 settlers and the
B post 1942 settlers who were "brought" to the islands undt:r various colonisa-
tion and rehabilitation schemes had a special case, as they passed through
times when the territory was extremely backward, undeveloped and in-
hospitable and, as such, they deserved a different treatment more
favourable than others who had migratt.:d to the island much later and of
C their own accord. On that basis, the Central Government restored the 50%
quota for pre 1942 and post 1942 settlers above mentioned. However, in
order to ensun: that benefits do accrue to the targeted population, the
Central Government directed further sub- quotas as follows :

(1) pre 1942 settlers .... l/3rd
D (2) other settlers ...... 1,'3rd

The remaining l'.3 was to go to the two groups but on 'combined merit',
with a condition that

"unutilised seats, if any, in this category, will go to the general merit
E quota."

The Central government retained the 10% quota for Government servants .:
and deputationists, subject to the condition that

"th(: candidates in this category should have studied the last two
F years in the islands and passed the qualifying examination, from a
school in the islands.''

and

"unutilised seats, if any in this category will go to the general merit
G
quota."

After thus ensuring the 20% quota for tribals, and 503 for the pre
and post 1942 settlers and 10% government employees (deputationists and
the unutilised seats for 'merit'), the Central Government dealt with the
H petitioner's category i.e. Locals with to years education and said that their
PARENTSASSOCIATIONv. U.OJ. ~M.JAGANNADHARAO,J.] 441

quota should not be abolished as contended by the other groups nor A
increased from 20% and that it should remain at 20%. It was also stated
that:

"unutilised scats in this category will be diverted to the general
merit quota."'
B
The Government did not find it appropriate to club any section of the
Central Government employees with transfer liability with this category of
'other locals'. Then the Government of India concluded as follows :

'"In short, the allocation of seats to various categories
with effect from the 1996 academic sessions will be as c
under:

Category I:

Tribals 20%
D
Category II :

Deputationists and Central Govt. employees with transfer
liability to serve outside the Union Territory, provided the
candidates in this category have studied the last two years
in the island and passed the qualifying examination from a E
school in the islands. 10%

Category Ill:

Settlers who were settled prior to 1942 and those who
were settled under various rehabilitation schemes intro-
F
duced after reoccupation of the Islands. 50%

The seats in this category will be allocated as under :

(a) Pre-1942 Settlers 1/3rd
G
(b) Other Settlers l/3rd
(c) Seats to be allocated on the basis
of combined merit of
(a) & (b) above 1/3rd

Category IV : H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2CXXJ) 1 S.C.R.
A Other locals who do not fall under category I, II or
III above and such Central Government Employees
having no transfer liability to serve outside the Union
territory, provided alt have had 10 years education
in the islands 20%

B Category V:

General merit quota open to al the residents of Vnutilised
the A&N Islands irrespective of any classification. Seats of
This will be subject to the condition that the Categories
candidates in this cakgory have studied the last I, II, III
c two years in the islands and passed the qualifying and IV
examination from a shcool in the Islands. above

We shall now refer to the facts mentioned in the counter affidavits
to justify the restoration of 50% quota for the pre-1942 and post 1942
D settlers and the reduction of the quota for the petitioners' category.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government in
this Court, it was stated that no other category had raised any objection
against the quotas fixed in the: order dated 30.5.96 except the petitoner's
category. In fact, the other categories for whom quotas were fixed were not ...
E even impleaded by the petitioners in this writ petition. (The ··natural born"
category got impleaded as respondent No. 5 on their own). The categories
referred to in the impugned order dated 30.5.96 are, it is stated, identifiable
in the islands and are not the c:reation of the government's instructions. No
provision of the Constitution has been violated. The reservation is based
on the policy of the Government of India. The Government ''may from time
F to time modify or vary the conditions regarding selection for admission if
such modifications or variations become necessary to achieve the purpose
of uplifting the socially and educationally backward candidates". Quotas
can be fixed by executive instructions also. It is not correct to state that
100% seats haw been reserved and nothing is left for merit. The pre 1942
G settlers and the settlers brought to the island under various colonisation
and rehabilitation schemes have a special case as they have passed through
difficult times when the territory was extremely backward, undeveloped and
inhospitable. They are entitled to more favourable treatment. The decision
is based on 'historical background' and a distinction based on 'historical
background' is valid. The petitioners' category is different as it consists of
H those who "subsequently migrated to islands on their own volition and sweet
PARBNTSASSOCIATIONv. U.O.L [M.JAGANNADI-IARAO,J.] 443

wil4 finding migration more beneficial and lucrative". The quotas are fixed A
for the 'students' in view of the express dirnctions of the Calcutta High
Court. There is no comparison between the pre-1942 and post 1942 settlers
on the one hand and the petitioners on the other hand. The 10% quota for
Deputationists and Central Government employees with transfer liability is
also valid as it encourages people to serve in the islands. The pre 1942
settlers suffered during the 2nd World War due to Japanese occupation B
while the post 1942 settlers were settled by government under schemes and
they faced tremtmdous hardships. The petitioners ha~e migrated much
later on thi:ir own volition and are ''socially, cducationally and economically
more advanced and do not share the same past which thi: pre 1942 settlers
had faced. In fact, most of the petitioners' category have an undisturbed
and settled establishment at various places in the mainland. The petitioners
c
represent the affluent classes who migrated at their sweet-will for exploring
lucrative business opportunities. They cannot be equated with pre or post
1942 settlers.''

In the counter affidavit filed by the 'Local-Born Association', a brief D
history of the islands is given. Reference is made to the penal settlement
of Indians in 1825 and in 1832 upto 1930 and to the criminal convicts
settled there by the Britisher;. Several sepoys who participated in the 1857
rebellion were also sent to Andamans. Other freedom fighters wen: sent
in 1905 and 1920. The"; pcr;,ms were forced to do labour for making
roads, buildings, removing forests etL. and to make the i~land habibb!t:. E
Those who were released wi;re not allowed to go back to the mainland but
were allowed to bring their families or marry female ex-convicts. The
Japanese occupied the islands on 2.3.43 and were there upto 18.10.45.
These Indians were tortured by the Japanese. The language, culture, life
style, economic strength and education of these were different. These are F
the 'local borns'. Then there were the post 1942 settlers brought under
special schemes. On the other hand, those who migrated in 1950 or
thereafter maintained their contact with the mainland. The members of the
1st petitioner's association who are central government employees and are
parties of the 10 years educated category - have claimed their 'Home Town'
in the main island and are permitted to visit the mainland every year at G
government expense. It was further averred that, under this quota, the ten
year educated group who get higher education in the mainland, do not
come back to work in the Islands. It is stated :

"... the children of the writ petitioner no. 1 after availaing the benefit H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.

A of reserved seats meant for this backward area, upon completing
their education, do not comeback for serving the island, instead and
settle down in the mainland. They never come back even though
they sign the bonds to serve the islands for a period of 3 years." =
The claim of the writ petitioners that the 10 year category students popula-
B tion constituted 58% of the total student population is denied as no
authentic census has been conducted. In any event, population is not the
criteria for allotment of scats by way of special provision. The existing
definition of 'locals' is to the detriment of the tribals and to the pre-1942
settlers and any further dilution therof is not permissible. Furtht:r, the said
C definition concerns employment and not education.

A rejoinder has been filed contending that the pre and post 1942
settlers do not stand on a separate footing and that 57% of student
population belonging to the petitioner's category cannot have only 20%
quota.
D
From the above facts as stated in the affidavits filed by the parties,
it is clear that the pre-1942 setrlers and the post 1942 settlers who were
settled in the Islands belong to a separate category and have to be con-
sidered as backward, socially and educationally, next only in degree to the
E Triabals. These categories were compulsorily inducted in the Island and
.. '
struggled hard over several decades to make the Islands habitable. They
had no educational opportunities over a long period and were forced to
do hard labour for laying roads, constructing buildings, removing forests
etc. These includt.:d penal settlers, sepoys of 1857 movement, later freedom
fighters etc. They were not allowed to go to the mainland. The 1942 settlers
F suffered torture during the Japao.ese occupation in 1942-43. The post 1942
settlers were brought to the Island under specific schemes of rehabilitation
etc. These two categories, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated
with the petitioner's category which consists of those who voluntarily
migrated to the island for business or other careers. These persons were
G definitely more advanced socially and educationally. In fact, it is the
respondent's contention that some of them show their 'home-town' in the
mainland and their children, once they get into the reservation quota, do
not come back to the island for settling there.

We, therefore, agree that in view of the historical background there
H was ample justification for the Central Government, in their orders dated
PARENTS ASSOCIA110N v. U.O.I. [M. JAUA.c"l'NADHA RAO, J.] 445

30.5.96, to restore the 50% quota for the pre and post 1942 settlers and in A
not reducing the same to 17.50% plus 17.50% as done by the Lt. Governor
in his order dated 6.8.94.

A question has been raised by the petitioners that according to the
survey, more than 50% of the students belong to the 10 year educated
category and that then:fore the fixation of a quota of 20% to the petitioners B
as against a student population over 50% was bad.

In our view, this contention is not :egally tenable. It was pointed out
in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, [1992[ Suppl. 3 sec 217, that
reservations are not to be made on the basis of population of a particular
category. Reservation for education is to be made undt:r Article 15(4)
c
keeping in view the social and educational backwardness and the need to
provide adequate educational opportunities. Merely because, the 'ten year
education category' like the petitioners are more in number, they cannot
claim a larger percentage of reservation on that basis. Jeevan Reddy, J.
pointed out (see p. 734 sec, para 807), that the principle of 'proportionate D
representation' was accepted in the Constitution only for purposes of
Articles 330 and 332 and that too for a limited period. Those articles spoke
of reservation in the Lok Sabha and Statt: Legislatures. No such reservation
based on population can, therefon:, b(; carved out for the petitioners.

Even if the peutiontor'~ category oi 1U y1::ar edurntt:d pcrsons consist
E

- of 57% of the student population, it is nut possible to give them a higher
quota as compared to the pre-1942 and post 1942 settlers who were
identified as backward, both socially and economically.

Further, it is clear that the Central Government in its orders has p
considered the facts revealed in the survey, it has considered the submis-
sions of all the groups and the historical basis of the reservation of 50% in
favour of the pre-1942 and post 1942 settlers. It has kept in mind that the
petitioners are afffluent and are more advanced educationally and socially.
In our view, the impugned order does not suffer from any irrationality. It
cannot be said that any relevant facts were not considered or any irrelevant G
facts were taken into consideration. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold on
Point I that the reduction of the quota for the petitioners from 35% to
20% was perfectly justified and on Point 2 that the prescription of 50% for
the pre and post 1942 settlers was equally justified. There was no violation
of Articles 14 or Article 15(4) or any other provision of the Constitution. H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A Points 1 and 2 are decided accordingly against the petitioners.
Point 3:

This point relates to the contention that no specific quota b.as been
fixed for candidates competing on merit basis.
B
It is true that normally it is expected that reserved categories cannot
exceed 50% of the quota as decided in various decisions of this Court and
the rest must go to merit candidates. But on the peculiar facts of the case
relating to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the present classification and
quota cannot be said to be offending the said principle. The impugned
C order dated 30.5.96 refers to tli.e statistics from 1992-93 and shows that
though 20% quota was reserved for the Tribals, the said quota was never
fully utilised. Therefore, it was specifically provided that the unutilised
quota of the 20% for tribals would go to merit candidates. A provision was
made in respect of the merit candidates amongst the pre-1942 and post
D 1942 categories by providing a sub-classification in which 1/3 of 50% would
go to such merit candidates and unutilised quota was to go to the general
merit candidates. Even in respect of the 10% quota for Central Govern-
ment employees and dcputationists and the 20% quota for the Ten year
education group, it was directed that the unutilised quota would go to the
0
E merit candidates. Having regard tc rather special facts obtaining in the
Islands, we are of th.: view that it cannot bL said that adequate provision
has not been made in favour of merit candidates.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners sought to contend, on
-
the basis of certain figures which were not brought on record, that in recent
F years the special quotas were not left unutilised. This contention was
countered by Sri S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel for some of the
respondents stating that the seats of the reserved categories remain un-
utilised even now. As there is no authentic data before us on the question,
we cannot accept the data put forward by the learned senior counsel for
G the petitioners. We, therefore, hold that it cannot be said that adequate
provision has not been made to the merit candidates. Point 3 is decided
against the petitiom:r~.

But, before parting with the case, we may state that the Government
of India has to review the position periodically to find out if the members
H of the reserved categories are able to get selection in sufficient numbers
PARENTS ASSOCIATION v. lJ.Q.L [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 447

and also whether a reasonable percentage is going to merit candidates. It A
may be that in the peculiar facts governing the Andaman and Nicobar
Islands the quota for merit candidates may not necessarily go upto 50%.
Such exceptional situations have been pointed out even in Indira Sawhney's
case (see p. 735 of SCC, para 810). It was there observed :

"While 50% shall be the rufo, it is necessary not to put out of B
consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the gn:at
diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in
far··flung and remote areas, the population inhabiting those areas,
might, on account of their bring out of the mainstream of national
life and in view of conditions peculiar to and characteristic to them C
need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict
rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be
exercised and a special case made out."

The last n:view having been made in 1~96, the Central Government
may consider a review at least by 2006. Any review has to be made after D
obtaining authentic data in regard to the extent of utilisation of the quotas
fixed under the 30.5.95 order for the Tribals and for the pre-1942 and post
1942 settlers.

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs. E

A.O. Petition dismissed.