Supreme Court of India
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH AND ANR.V. THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.versusTHE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 16
- Decided
- 5 January 2022
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- L NAGESWARA RAO
Holding
The 2012 Amendment Act applies to Manipur University and obliges it to follow the reservation norms of 2% SC, 31% ST and 17% OBC as prescribed by the second proviso to Section 3, rendering the University's higher SC/ST quotas invalid.
Summary
The appellants, two SC candidates, challenged the reservation policy of Manipur University, arguing that the 2012 Amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 should not reduce SC reservation from 15% to 2% and that the amendment applied only to institutions in Sixth Schedule tribal areas. The University, originally a State University, became a Central University in 2005 and had followed the Manipur State reservation policy (2% SC, 31% ST) before adopting the Act's 15%/7.5%/27% scheme in 2009-10. The Supreme Court examined the purpose and language of the Amendment Act, the definition of "Specified north‑eastern region", and the two provisos inserted in Section 3, concluding that the amendment was intended to resolve difficulties faced by institutions in the North‑Eastern states and to preserve the pre‑Act SC/ST percentages. Accordingly, the Court held that the amendment mandates Manipur University to apply the reservation ratios of 2% SC, 31% ST and 17% OBC, rendering the University's Ordinances prescribing higher SC/ST quotas invalid. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Issues considered
- The scope of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012 with respect to Manipur University located in the "Specified north‑eastern region".
- Whether the second proviso to Section 3 of the amended Act requires the SC and ST reservation percentages to be fixed on the basis of the pre‑2006 figures (2% SC, 31% ST) rather than the 15%/7.5% prescribed in the parent Act.
- Whether the amendment intends to protect SC/ST reservation levels from reduction and permits their increase at the expense of OBC reservation.
- Whether the University’s Ordinances 5.2 and 5.4 prescribing 15% SC, 7.5% ST and 27% OBC reservations are valid post‑amendment.
- The admissibility of parliamentary committee reports as external aids for interpreting the amendment.
Legislation cited
- Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006s. 2, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5
- Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012s. 1, s. 2, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5
- Constitution of Indias. Article 15
- Manipur University Act, 1980
- Manipur University Act, 2005
Subjects
reservationcentral universitySC reservationST reservationOBC reservationAmendment Act 2012statutory interpretationparliamentary committee reportspecified north‑eastern regioncentral educational institutions
Judgment
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 479 479
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH AND ANR. A
v.
THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2022)
JANUARY 05, 2022 B
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in admission) Act, 2006 (as amended in
2012) – Reservation of seats in State University which was C
subsequently converted into a Central University – Whether the
Amendment Act of 2012 was legislated to ensure that the reservation
for SC and ST candidates as prescribed in s.3 of the Parent Act,
2006 should not be reduced from bench mark of 15% and 7.5%
respectively – Whether the Amendment Act contemplates that the
percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates earmarked in D
s.3 of Parent Act could be increased even to the detriment of the
earmarked percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, to ensure
that the over all 50% reservation for SC and ST taken collectively,
is not disturbed in any manner – Held: The Amendment Act was
enacted only to resolve the difficulties that were being faced by the E
Central Educational Institutions in implementing the Reservation
Act when it came to the North Eastern States, including the State of
Manipur – The two provisos inserted in s.3 of the Parent Act are
nothing but a recognition of the demography of the North Eastern
States covered under the umbrella of “Specified north eastern
region” which have a substantial tribal population – After the F
amendment of the Parent Reservation Act of 2006, Manipur
University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC
candidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates
which is in consonance with the 2 nd proviso to s.3 of the Parent
Reservation Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act of 2012.
G
Parliamentary Committees Reports: Reports and
recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committees/
Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute can be used as
external aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguous words in a
statutory provision wherever considered necessary – It can also be
H
479
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A taken note of as to the existence of a historical fact – At the same
time, it must be borne in mind that such Reports are not decisive
and a Court is free to arrive at a different conclusion based on its
own findings and other evidence produced by the parties.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B HELD: 1. Respondent No. 1 – University was originally
established as a ‘State University’ in the year 1980 under the
Manipur University Act No. 8 of 1980. As a State University,
respondent No. 1 – University was following the Manipur State
reservation policy by reserving 2% seats for SC candidates and
C 31% for ST candidates for admission into various courses. On
13th October, 2005, the respondent No. 1 – University was
converted into a ‘Central University’ under the Manipur
University Act No. 54 of 2005. After conversion too, respondent
No. 1 - University continued following the Manipur State
Reservation Policy, i.e., 2% for SC and 31% for ST for admission
D upto the academic session 2008-2009. On 3rd January, 2007, the
Reservation Act came into force. Pursuant thereto, the
respondent No. 1 – University started following the reservation
policy as prescribed in Section 3 of the Reservation Act i.e. 15%
for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs for the academic session
E 2009-2010 onwards. A shift in reservation came on amendment
of the Reservation Act by virtue of the Amendment Act w.e.f.
19th June, 2012. [Para 20][498-E-H]
2. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Amendment Bill, 2010 was placed before the
F Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development that submitted its 234th Report, which was tabled
before both the Houses of the Parliament on 26th February, 2011.
The Standing Committee took note of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons for amending the Reservation Act and also noticed
the practical difficulties faced by some of the CEIs in implementing
G the provisions of the Reservation Act as expressed by the
Department of Higher Education. [Paras 21, 22][499-A;
500-E-F]
3. Reports and recommendations made by the Parliamentary
Committees/Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 481
UNIVERSITY
can be used as external aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguous A
words in a statutory provision wherever considered necessary.
It can also be taken note of as to the existence of a historical fact.
At the same time, such Reports are not decisive and a Court is
free to arrive at a different conclusion based on its own findings
and other evidence produced by the parties. [Para 25][502-G-H]
B
4. It can be discerned from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons appended to the Amendment Bill, the background notes
submitted to the Standing Committee by the Department of
Higher Education and the 234th Report tabled by the Standing
Committee in the Parliament that some of the CEIs, in particular
those situated in North Eastern States having a predominant tribal C
population, expressed their inability to reduce the extent of
reservation of seats for SCs and STs for ensuring reservation of
27% of the seats for the OBC category, as stipulated in the
Reservation Act. It can also be seen that the provisions of the
Reservation Act as they stood, exempted CEIs situated in tribal D
areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, from
making any reservation for SCs and STs, which as a matter of
fact, was not the object behind introducing the enactment.
Recognising the fact that the composition of the population in
the North Eastern States ought to be given precedence, the
Standing Committee stated in its Report that while the extent of E
reservation of seats for SCs/STs may be definite, OBC reservation
may differ from State to State. It was with the idea of reconciliating
50% cap on reservation for SCs/STs and 27% for the OBC quota,
that the Amendment Bill was introduced primarily to remove the
existing ambiguities and to overcome the difficulties that were F
being faced by the CEIs established in the Sixth Schedule States,
to accommodate the aspirations of a large tribal population in
that region. [Para 26][503-C-F]
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellants cannot be heard
to state that the amendments brought about in the Reservation G
Act by legislating the Amendment Act were only directed towards
tribal States covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution
and cannot be made applicable to the State of Manipur, even
though the definition of the expression “Specified north eastern
H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A region” introduced by virtue of the amended Section 2(ia)
encompasses the State of Manipur. Nor is this Court persuaded
by the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the second
proviso was inserted in Section 3 only to make sure that the
percentage of reservation provided for in Section 3(i) and (ii) of
the Parent Act would remain untouched. Accepting such a
B
submission would tantamount to negating the very aim and object
of the Amendment Act, which was enacted only to resolve the
difficulties that were being faced by the CEIs in implementing
the Reservation Act when it came to the North Eastern States,
including the State of Manipur. The two provisos inserted in Section
C 3 of the Parent Act are nothing but a recognition of the
demography of the North Eastern States covered under the
umbrella of “Specified north eastern region” which have a
substantial tribal population. [Para 27][503-G-H; 504-A-D]
6. Once the two provisos were inserted in Section 3 of the
D Parent Act by virtue of the Amendment Act, the general norms
of reservation as laid down in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3
of the Parent Act had to be restricted in terms of the said provisos.
While the first proviso deals with “State seats”, if any, in a CEI
situated in tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution, the second proviso addresses a situation where there
E are no State seats in a CEI and the seats reserved for the SC/ST
candidates exceeds the percentage specified under Clauses (i)
and (ii) of Section 3 (viz., 15% seats for SCs plus 7.5% for STs,
totalling to 22.5% seats) or if the combined seats reserved for
the SC and ST candidates exceeds the sum total of the percentage
F as specified under Clauses (i) and (ii). Two riders have also been
dovetailed in the second proviso to Section 3, namely Clauses (a)
and (b). Clause (a) of the second proviso, contemplates a situation
where seats referred to in the second proviso are less than 50%
of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.
G Clause (b) provides for a situation where such seats are over
50% of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. In
a situation contemplated in Clause (a) of the second proviso, a
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 483
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
restriction has been imposed on the total percentage of seats A
required to be reserved for OBC candidates under Section 3(iii)
of the Parent Act by limiting them to the balance seats available
after factoring in the combined percentage of seats specified in
Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act, falling short of
50% of the annual permitted strength. But in circumstances
B
contemplated in Clause (b), the Act recognizes the fact that no
seats need be reserved for the OBC candidates under Clause
(iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. However, this is subject to the
condition that the extent of reservation of seats for SC and ST
candidates shall not be reduced when it comes to CEIs established
in “Specified north eastern region”. This goes to demonstrate that C
the underlying intent of the Amendment Act was to secure a
particular percentage of seats through reservation for a set of
candidates and leave some space for capping of seats for OBC
candidates, depending on the circumstances contemplated in
Clauses (a) and (b) of the second proviso to the amended
D
Section 3. [Para 30][506-A-G]
7. In the instant case, the respondent No.1-University has
clarified in its affidavit that prior to commencement of the
Reservation Act, the prevalent percentage of reservation for ST
and SC candidates was 31% and 2% respectively. Nothing to the
contrary has been brought forth by the appellant. That being the E
position, the respondent No.1-University was right in reverting
back to the position obtaining immediately before the
commencement of the Reservation Act by reserving seats in
respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, pegged at 31%, 2% and
17% respectively which was in consonance with the Manipur State F
Reservation Policy. [Para 31][506-G-H; 507-A-B]
8. The reference point of the period for determining the
reservation quota for OBC candidates must be the same as that
of the SC and ST candidates for the simple reason that for working
out the reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessarily G
require one to find out in the first instance, as to what would be
the difference between 50% of the annual permitted strength
and the combined existing percentage for the SC and ST
candidates, as obtained on the date immediately preceding the
H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A date of commencement of the Reservation Act. Both the issues
are so interlaced that to determine the percentage of reservation
for OBC candidates, one would have to undertake an exercise of
determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for SC and
ST candidates, all within the four corners of the second proviso
inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act. Any other interpretation
B
sought to be assigned to the second proviso to Section 3 inserted
post-amendment, would make the proviso itself unworkable and
redundant and is, therefore, impermissible. Thus, the general
rules of reservation have been encapsulated in Clauses (i), (ii)
and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. But when it comes to
C CEIs established in States falling under the definition of “Specified
north eastern region”, categorized in Section 2(ia) introduced by
the Amendment Act, the two new provisos appended to Section 3
would govern the norms of reservation which prescribes a
different criteria, vis-à-vis the main provision and would apply
irrespective of whether they are situated in areas covered by the
D
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not. After amendment of
the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 – University had to
follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC candidates, 31% for
ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in
consonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation
E Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act. [Paras 33, 34]
[507-E-H; 508-A-B, C-D]
State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap (1974) 3 SCC 337: [1974]
1 SCR 589; , R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) 2 SCC
183 : [1984] 2 SCR 495; Kalpana Mehta and Others.
F v. Union of India and Others (2018) 7 SCC 1 : [2018]
4 SCR 1 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1974] 1 SCR 589 referred to Para 25
G [1984] 2 SCR 495 referred to Para 25
[2018] 4 SCR 1 referred to Para 25
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 485
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.163 of A
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2017 of the High Court
of Manipur at Imphal in
W. P. (C) No.753 of 2014.
B
Ms. Punam Kumari, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Sanjay Jain, ASG, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Krishna
Kant Dubey, Vivek Kumar Pandey, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Pankaj Singh,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Apoorv Kurup, Kush Chaturvedi, Ms. Swarupma C
Chaturvedi, Anukalp Jain, Balaji Srinivasan, Ashutosh Dubey, Abhishek
Chauhan, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Arun Nagar, Amit P. Shahi, Shivendra
Dwivedi, Rajesh Mahale, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HIMA KOHLI, J. D
Leave granted.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21st August,
2017 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Petition (C)
No. 753 of 2014 whereunder, amongst others, it has been held that after
the amendment of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in E
Admission) Act, 20061, in the year 2012, on introduction of the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act,
20122, respondent No. 1 - Manipur University3 is required to follow the
reservation norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste
[SC], 31% for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the Other F
Backward Classes [OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.
2. To contextualize the issue raised in the present appeal, it is
necessary to briefly refer to the relevant facts of the case. Respondent
no. 1- University was initially established as a ‘State University’ under
the Manipur University Act, 1980 that came into force on 05th June, G
1980. In the year 2005, the Manipur University Act was legislated,
whereafter respondent No. 1 – University was converted from a ‘State
1
For short “the Reservation Act”
2
For short ‘the Amendment Act”
3
‘University’ H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A University’ to a ‘Central University’ w.e.f. 13th October, 2005. On 04th
January, 2007, the Reservation Act was notified. Section 3 of the said
Act prescribed reservation of seats in the Central Educational Institutions
and laid down as follows:
“3. Reservation of seats in Central Educational
B Institutions.–
The reservation of seats in admission and its extent in a Central
Educational Institution shall be provided in the following manner,
namely:-
i out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study
C or faculty, fifteen per cent. seats shall be reserved for
the Scheduled Castes;
ii out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study
or faculty, seven and one-half per cent. seats shall be
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes;
D
iii. out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study
or faculty, twenty-seven per cent. seats shall be
reserved for the Other Backward Classes.”
[emphasis supplied]
E 3. The expression “out of the annual permitted strength”
referred to in Section 3 above, has been defined in Section 2(b) in the
following words:
“2. Definitions:-
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
F
xxx xxx xxx
b. “annual permitted strength” means the number of seats, in
a course or programme for teaching or instruction in each branch
of study or faculty authorised by an appropriate authority for
G admission of students to a Central Educational Institution;
xxx xxx xxx”
4. From the academic year 2009-10 onwards, respondent No. 1 –
University started following the reservation norms as prescribed in the
Reservation Act. On 20th June, 2012, the aforesaid Statute was amended
H by virtue of the Amendment Act and as a result of the said amendment,
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 487
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
Clauses (ia) and (ib) were inserted in Section 2, i.e. the definition clause A
and two provisos were inserted in Section 3. Further, Clause (a) of Section
4 was omitted and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 were amended.
The aforesaid Amendment Act, 2012 that forms the bedrock of the
grievance raised in the present appeal, is extracted below for ready
reference:
B
“THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
(RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) AMENDMENT
ACT,2012
NO. 31 OF 2012 [19th June, 2012]
C
PREAMBLE
An Act to amend the Central Educational Institutions
(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 Be it enacted by Parliament
in the Sixty-third Year of the Republic of India as follows: -
SECTION - 1. Short title.-This Act may be called the Central D
Educational institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012.
SECTION - 2. Amendment of section 2 -In section 2 of the
Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006 (5 of 2007) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), E
after clause (i), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely:-
(ia) “Specified north-eastern region” means the area
comprising of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura and the
tribal areas of Assam referred to in the Sixth Schedule to F
the Constitution;
(ib) “State seats”, in relation to a Central Educational Institution,
means such seats, if any, out of the annual permitted strength in
each branch of study or faculty as are earmarked to be filled
from amongst the eligible students of the State in which such G
institution is situated;
SECTION -3. Amendment of section 3.- In section 3 of the
principal Act, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:-
”Provided that the State seats, if any, in a Central Educational
Institution situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A Schedule to the Constitution shall be governed by such reservation
policy for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the
Other Backward Classes, as may be specified, by notification in
the Official Gazette, by the Government of the State where such
institution is situated:
B Provided further that if there are no State seats in a Central
Educational Institution and the seats reserved for the
Scheduled castes exceed the percentage specified under
clause (i) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes
exceed the percentage specified under clause (ii) or the
seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
C Tribes taken together exceed the sum of percentages
specified under clauses (i) and (ii), but such seats are-
(a) less than fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength
on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement
of this Act, the total percentage of the seats required to be
D reserved for the Other Backward Classes under clause (iii)
shall be restricted to the extent such sum of percentages
specified under clauses (i) and (ii) falls short of fifty per
cent. of the annual permitted strength,;
(b) more than fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength on
E the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of
this Act, in that case no seat shall be reserved for the Other
Backward Classes under clause (iii) but the extent of the
reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes shall not be reduced in respect of Central Educational
F Institutions in the specified north-eastern region.”.
SECTION - 4. Amendment of section 4.-In section 4 of the
principal Act, clause (a) shall be omitted.
SECTION - 5. Amendment of section 5.-In section 5 of the
principal Act, - (a) in sub-section (1), for the words “number of
G such seats available”, the words “number of such seats available
or actually filled, wherever be less, shall be substituted;
(b) in sub-section (2), for the words “three years”, the words “six
years” shall be substituted.”
[emphasis supplied]
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 489
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
5. Relying on the provision of reservation made under Section 3 A
of the Reservation Act, Respondent No. 1 – University promulgated
Ordinance 5.2, that prescribes rules relating to admission to the University
and Ordinance 5.4 deals with reservation of seats and other special
provisions for admission to the University, both in the year 2014. Rule 18
of Ordinance 5.2 reads as below:
B
“18. 15% of the seats in the academic programmes offered
by the University shall be reserved for students belonging
to Scheduled Caste, 7-1/2 % for students belonging to
Scheduled Tribe and 27% for students belonging to Other
Backward Classes.
C
Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent
the University from making special provisions for admission of
women, persons with disabilities or of persons belonging to the
weaker sections of the society and, in particular, of the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the other socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens. D
Provided further that no such special provision shall be made on
the ground of domicile.”
[emphasis supplied]
6. While Rule 1 of Ordinance 5.4 deals with reservation of seats,
E
Rule 2 deals with reservation of seats for students belonging to SC &
ST categories. Respondent No. 1 – University has stipulated in Rule 2.1
of Ordinance 5.4 as below:
“2. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
22.5% of seats in all Courses will be reserved for Scheduled Castes F
and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the following order:
2.1 15% of seats will be reserved for Scheduled Castes
and 7.5% Scheduled Tribes. 27% of seats will be
reserved for OBC. “
7. For the academic year 2014-15, respondent No. 1- University G
issued a prospectus, stating inter alia that seats shall be reserved as per
the Government of India norms. In the Press Release dated 24th July,
2014, respondent No. 1 – University clarified that for conducting
admissions for the academic year 2014-15, reservation will be provided
to the extent of 2% for SC category, 31% for ST category and 17% for
OBC category. H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A 8. Aggrieved by the denial of admission to them, the appellants,
who are candidates belonging to the SC category and had applied for
admission in various Post Graduate courses, questioned the purported
reduction of the quota for SC category candidates from 15%, as
prescribed in Section 3 of the Reservation Act to 2% and filed a writ
petition in the High Court of Manipur which was disposed of by the
B
learned Single Judge vide order dated 01st September, 2015, holding
inter alia that the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates,
as was applied to the respondent No. 1 – University prior to the
commencement of the Reservation Act, would be adopted for
determination of percentage of reservation for the reserved categories
C in question. It was specifically directed that the percentage of reservation
for the students belonging to the SC, ST and OBC categories in the
University, would be 2%, 31% and 17% respectively for admission to
various courses. However, the Court declined to go into the actual
calculation of the seats notified as reserved by the respondent No. 1 –
University and confined itself to the principles to be adopted for
D
determination of percentage of reservation of seats on which basis,
calculation of the seats had to be made.
9. Dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment dated 01st September,
2015, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 40 of 2015 before the High
Court of Manipur at Imphal. As no Division Bench was available due to
E paucity of Judges in the said Court, recourse was taken to filing a Transfer
Petition before this Court, which was allowed and the captioned writ
appeal was transferred to the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong for
adjudication by a Division Bench and was re-numbered as Writ Appeal
No. 83 of 2016.
F 10. Vide judgment dated 20th April, 2017, the Division Bench of
the High Court of Meghalaya remanded the matter back to the learned
Single Judge of the Manipur High Court for consideration afresh and
called upon the said Court to examine and decide the percentage of
reservation for SC, ST and OBC categories in the light of the second
G proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act [as amended vide
Amendment Act] and the effect of Ordinance 5.2 and Ordinance 5.4,
promulgated by the respondent No. 1 – University. It is on remand that
the impugned judgment dated 21st August, 2017 has been passed by the
High Court of Manipur, the concluding para whereof is extracted below
for ready reference:
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 491
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
“[71] This Court accordingly, concludes and directs as follows: A
(i) This Court holds, as also held by Hon’ble Division Bench, that
the Second Proviso provides the formulae for working out the
percentage of reservation for the OBCs in the Institutions located
in the States within the specified north eastern region which is to
be worked out on the basis of the figures of percentages for the B
SCs and STs existing on the date immediately preceding the date
of commencement of the Act of 2006.
(ii) It is this set of figures of percentages for the SCs and STs
existing on the date immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Act of 2006 ascertained and used for C
working out the percentage of reservation for the OBCs, which
would also be the percentages of reservation for admission for
the SCs and STs after the amendment of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 by the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012, and the Institute or the Manipur University cannot D
anymore invoke Clause (i) and (ii) of Section 3 to determine the
reservation for the SCs and STs separately.
(iii) The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006 as amended in the year 2012, does not provide nor the
Hon’ble Division Bench had held that, once the aforesaid set of E
figures of percentages for SCs and STs existing on the date
immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Act of
2006 have been ascertained and used for working out the
percentage of reservation for the OBCs, this set has to be jettisoned
and ignored and the Institute. (Manipur University in this case) F
can go back to Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 to determine the
reservation of reservation for the SCs and STs independent of the
figures used under the Second Proviso after the amendment of
the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006 in 2012.
G
Neither the Act, nor the Hon’ble Division Bench has stated
that irrespective of the formula for ascertaining the percentage of
reservation for the OBCs as provided under the Second Proviso
to Section 3 of the Act after the amendment in 2012, the Institute
has to apply Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Act to fix the
percentage of reservation for the SCs and STs. H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A (iv) Second Proviso was specifically inserted for the Central
Educational Institutions located in the specified North Eastern
Region for protecting the interest of STs, particularly as evident
from the Clause (b) of the Second Proviso. It protects the interest
of the STs wherever, their percentage of reservation is more than
what is prescribed under Clause (ii) of Section 3 of the Act. The
B
Act specifically provides that even if the extent of reservation of
seats of the STs & SCs exceed 50% of the annual permitted
strength on the date immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Act, there shall not be reservation for the
OBCs under Clause (3) but, the extent of reservation of seats for
C STs & SCs shall not be reduced.
(v) The Institute has to determine the percentages of reservation
for admission for the SCs, STs and OBCs on the basis of the
Central Educational institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006 as amended in 2012 and not on the basis of any other statute.
D In the present case, the Manipur University has to fix the
percentages of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs on the
basis of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Act, 2006 as amended in 2012 and not on the basis of
Section 31(1)(a) or any other provision of the Manipur University
Act, 2005 as the Manipur University Act is no more the source of
E
authority for determining the percentages of reservation after the
implementation of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation
in Admission) Act, 2006.
(vi) The reservation norm has to be adopted by the Manipur
University by referring to the Central Educational Institutions
F
(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 as amended by the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012 only and by not referring to any provision of the Manipur
University Act, 2005.
(vii) Accordingly, any Statute or Ordinance or any rule or notification
G
fixing the percentage of reservation for admission framed/issued
by the Manipur University has to conform to the aforesaid norm
of 2% for the Scheduled Castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes
and 17% for the Other Backward Classes worked out and
ascertained in terms of the Second Proviso to Section 3 of the
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 493
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, A
2006 as amended in 2012. Any other norm not conforming to the
above will be invalid being in contravention of the Central Education
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 as amended in
2012.
(viii) Ordinances 5.2 and 5.4 made by the Manipur University as B
far as determining the percentages of reservation for the SCs,
STs and OBCs are concerned, are not valid. Hence, these have
no value, worth or effect as far as the issue of determination of
the percentages of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs in
Manipur University is concerned.
C
(ix) In any event, it has not been shown by these Ordinances,
how the Manipur University had fixed the percentage of
reservation for the OBCs at 27% in the face of the formulae
specifically provided under the Second Proviso for working out
the percentage of reservation for the OBCs and also for the SCs
and STs. To that extent, these Ordinances also suffer from the D
vice of arbitrariness.
(x) The validity of these Ordinances relating to other matters,
other than fixation of percentage of reservation for admission of
students, not being an issue in this petition, is left open to be decided
in appropriate case. E
(xi) Before the implementation of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, Manipur
University was following the reservation norm of 2% for
the Scheduled Castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes and
17% for the Other Backward Classes. F
(xii) After the implementation of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, Manipur
University started following the reservation norm as per
Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Act to the extent
of 15% for the Scheduled Castes, 7.5% for the Scheduled G
Tribes, and 27% for the Other Backward Classes from the
academic year 2009-2010.
(xiii) After the amendment of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 in 2012
introduced by the Central Educational Institutions H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012,
Manipur University has to follow the reservation norm of
2% for the Scheduled castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes
and 17% for the Other Backward Classes.”
[emphasis supplied]
B 11. Ms. Punam Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants has
assailed the impugned judgment contending that the High Court has erred
in taking a view that the proviso inserted vide the Amendment Act,
would be applicable to a Central Educational Institution4 located in States
falling within the “Specified north eastern region” and that the extent
C of reservation would have to be worked out on the basis of the figures of
percentage for the SCs and STs, as was existing on the date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act. It is her
submission that the amendments brought about by the Amendment Act
are only in respect of tribal States falling under the purview of the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution of India5 and not in respect of other States
D including a State like Manipur falling under “Specified north eastern
region”, defined in the amended Section 2 (ia) of the Parent Act
[Reservation Act].
12. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to draw a distinction
between the amended Section 2 (ia) that defines “Specified north
E eastern region” and the amended Section 3 by virtue of the Amendment
Act by urging that clause (ia) of Section 2 has been inserted only to
group together all North Eastern States, irrespective of whether they
fall under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not, whereas Section
3 makes a separate provision for a tribal State. She submitted that the
F second proviso was inserted in Section 3 only to ensure that the
percentage of reservation provided for in Section 3 (i) and (ii) of the
Reservation Act that laid down the percentage of reservation of seats
for SC and ST candidates as 15% and 7.5% respectively, were to be
maintained and not that the same could be increased or decreased by
the CEI in a “Specified north eastern region”. It was canvassed that
G the group of States defined in Section 2 (ia) as “Specified north eastern
region”, have been created by the Amendment Act with the specific
purpose of protecting the interest of SC and ST candidates belonging to
4
For short “the CEI”
5
H For short “the Constitution”
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 495
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
other North Eastern States that are not tribal States and contrary to the A
said provision, respondent No. 1 – University has reduced the quota of
seats for SC candidates, which is impermissible.
13. It was further sought to be pointed out on behalf of the appellants
that amendment to Section 3 of the Reservation Act was necessitated
only because Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act, stood omitted by the B
Amendment Act. Pertinently, Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act as it
stood prior to the amendment, stated that the provision of Section 3 of
the Act would not apply to a CEI established in tribal areas, referred to
in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. It was submitted that the intention
of the Legislature in amending the Reservation Act by introducing the C
Amendment Act was not to make the amendments applicable to CEIs
situated in non- tribal States like the State of Manipur and the expression
“on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of
the Reservation Act”, as used in the second proviso to Section 3 of
the Act, qualifies the expression “annual permitted strength” as used
in Section 3 and defined in Section 2(b) of the Parent Act and not the D
extent of reservation.
14. To sum up, it is the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants that the Amendment Act was legislated to ensure that
reservation for SC and ST candidates as prescribed in Section 3 of the
Parent Act, should not be reduced from the benchmark of 15% and E
7.5% respectively. Rather, the Amendment Act contemplates that the
percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates earmarked in Section
3 of the Parent Act could be increased even to the detriment of the
earmarked percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, to ensure
that the overall limit of 50% reservation for SC and ST candidates taken F
collectively, is not disturbed in any manner.
15. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appeared
for the respondent No. 5 - Union of India that has filed a counter affidavit
through the Ministry of Human Resource Development. In its counter
affidavit, Union of India has supported the findings returned in the G
impugned judgment to the effect that the percentage of reservation for
SC and ST candidates was existing and being applied by the respondent
No. 1 – University when it was a ‘State University’, before the
commencement of the Reservation Act, viz. 31% for STs and 2% for
SCs which was required to be adopted for determination of the percentage
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A of reservation for ST and SC candidates in the University and that the
percentage of reservation for OBC candidates was to be restricted to
the extent of the percentages of reservation for the ST and SC candidates
taken collectively, provided it falls short of 50% of the annual permitted
strength, as provided under clause (a) of the second proviso to the
amended Section 3 of the Reservation Act. It is the stand of the Union
B
of India that the percentage of reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates
has been correctly pegged at 2%, 31% and 17% respectively for admission
to various courses in the respondent No. 1 – University, since the same
percentage was applicable immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Reservation Act.
C
16. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 7, an ST category candidate has supported the stand
taken by the respondent No. 5 - Union of India and submitted that the
plea of the appellants for restoration of minimum 15% reservation for
SC students is impermissible. He argued that the respondent No. 1 –
D University is a ‘Central University’ and is governed by the Rules and
Regulations of the Central Government which in this case, translates
into the Reservation Act. He clarified that the respondent No. 1 –
University had the status of a ‘State University’ only till the year 2005
and at that point in time, it was following the then prevalent rules of
reservation in the State of Manipur viz. 2% for SC candidates and 31%
E
for ST candidates for admission in courses offered by the University.
However, the said position changed when the respondent No. 1 –
University was granted the status of a ‘Central University’ in the year
2005 and was thereafter governed under the Reservation Act which
came into force w.e.f. 03rd January, 2007. On being designated as a
F Central University, respondent No. 1 – University discontinued the
reservation norms of the State Government and started following the
reservation norms provided under Section 3 of the Reservation Act i.e.,
15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs. Learned counsel clarified
that the respondent No. 1 – University was not covered under the
exemption clause provided under Section 4 (a) of the Parent Act that
G
was subsequently repealed since the University is not an “institution
established in tribal areas”, referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution. Only after enactment of the Amendment Act did the
respondent No. 1 – University make changes in its reservation policy
and in compliance to the proviso of Section 3, inserted post amendment,
H the University restored the earlier norms of reservation by reserving 2%
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 497
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
seats for SCs, 31% seats for STs and 17% seats for OBCs. Learned A
counsel for the respondent No. 7 concluded by submitting that the
impugned judgment projects the correction position and does not warrant
any interference by this Court.
17. Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 has also supported the findings returned in B
the impugned judgment and submitted that in compliance to the
Amendment Act, respondent No. 1 - University has rightly calculated
the ratio of reservation of seats in admission to 31% for ST, 2% for SC
and 17% for OBC candidates. He submitted that a plain reading of the
last part of clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 3 of the Parent
Act, as amended vide Amendment Act makes it amply clear that in view C
of the substantial tribal population in the State of Manipur and the other
States mentioned in Section 2(ia) that defines “Specified north eastern
region”, the ratio of reservation for SC and ST candidates prevailing
immediately before the enactment of the Reservation Act would not be
reduced. At the same time, the said ratio of reservation would not be D
controlled by the general rule of the ratio of reservation as provided
under Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. Learned
counsel sought to urge that Amendment Act was necessitated only to
rectify the anomaly in Section 3 of the Reservation Act that provided a
blanket reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates while overlooking
the fact that in the case of the State of Manipur, over 42% of the population E
is tribal as against only 3.4% of the population that falls under the SC
category. He sought to explain that the second proviso was inserted in
Section 3 of the Parent Act to carve out an exception to the general rule
of reservation as provided in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 and
that respondent No. 1 - University is squarely covered under the said F
proviso since there is no State seat reserved in the said University for
purposes of allocation which is the first requirement prescribed for
application of the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Act.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 – the
UGC has, however, subscribed to the arguments advanced by learned G
counsel for the appellants and submitted that reduction of the number of
seats reserved for SC candidates in the respondent No. 1 – University
runs contrary to the mandate of the Reservation Act. It is his submission
that the Amendment Act provides for reduction of reservation to the
OBC category candidates to the extent that there need not be any
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A reservation at all for the said category only to ensure that there is no
reduction in the overall seats reserved for the SC and ST candidates.
Referring to the provisos incorporated in Section 3 of the Parent Act by
virtue of the amendments, learned counsel submitted that the requirement
that “the extent of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes shall not be reduced in respect of Central
B
Education Institutions in specified North Eastern Regions” applies
not only to the situation contemplated in Clause (a) to the second proviso
appended to Section 3 of the Parent Act, but also to Clause (b) to the
second proviso. In other words, reservation made for SC and ST
candidates should not be reduced to the extent below what was prevailing
C before the Reservation Act, 2006 came into force or after the said
enactment thereby meaning that reservation for SC candidates could
not be less than 15% and for ST candidates could not be less than 7.5%.
Therefore, provision of only 2% reservation to SC candidates by the
respondent No. 1 – University violates the mandates of Section 3 of the
Parent Act.
D
19. We have perused the impugned judgment and given our
thoughtful consideration to the multifaceted arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the parties.
20. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 – University was
E originally established as a ‘State University’ in the year 1980 under the
Manipur University Act No. 8 of 1980. As a State University, respondent
No. 1 – University was following the Manipur Sate reservation policy
by reserving 2% seats for SC candidates and 31% for ST candidates for
admission into various courses. On 13th October, 2005, the respondent
F No. 1 – University was converted into a ‘Central University’ under the
Manipur University Act No. 54 of 2005. After conversion too, respondent
No. 1 - University continued following the Manipur State Reservation
Policy, i.e., 2% for SC and 31% for ST for admission upto the academic
session 2008-2009. On 3rd January, 2007, the Reservation Act came into
force. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 1 – University started
G following the reservation policy as prescribed in Section 3 of the
Reservation Act i.e. 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs for
the academic session 2009-2010 onwards. A shift in reservation came
on amendment of the Reservation Act by virtue of the Amendment Act
w.e.f. 19th June, 2012.
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 499
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
21. The necessity to amend the Reservation Act can be gleaned A
from a glance at the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the
Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Bill, 20106 which is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) B
Act, 2006 provides, inter alia, for the reservation in admission of
students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes
and the Other Backward Classes of citizens to the extent of fifteen
per cent., seven and one-half per cent. and twenty-seven per
cent. respectively to certain Central Educational Institutions C
established, maintained or aided by the Central Government. It
also provides for mandatory increase of seats in such institutions
over a maximum period of three years from the academic session
commencing on and from the calendar year, 2007. Section 4 of
the aforesaid Act further provides that the provisions of the Act
are not applicable to certain Central Educational Institutions D
including those established in the tribal areas referred to in the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.
2. It is noted that some of the Central Educational
Institutions particularly those situated in the North-Eastern
States including Sikkim (but excluding the non-tribal areas E
of Assam) inhabited significantly, and in some cases
predominantly by tribal population and Babasaheb Bhimrao
Ambedkar University, Lucknow, which has been reserving
fifty per cent. seats for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes in keeping with the objects specified in
F
the Act establishing that University, have been showing
their inability to reduce the extent of reservation of seats
for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
prevailing therein, in order to give way for reservation of
twenty-seven per cent. of seats for the Other Backward
Classes as stipulated under the Act. Further, the existing G
provisions of the Act exempt the Central Educational
Institutions situated in the tribal areas referred to in the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution from reservation for the
6
For short ‘the Amendment Bill’ H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, if any, but this
was not intended while enacting the aforesaid Act, except
in case of Minority Educational Institutions which are
exempt in terms of clause (5) of article 15 of the
Constitution. Moreover, some of the Central Educational
Institutions have been finding it difficult to adhere to the
B
time-limit of three years for creation of the requisite physical
and academic infrastructure owing to various reasons
beyond their control.
3. In order to remove the aforesaid practical difficulties being
faced by the various Central Educational Institutions in giving effect
C to the provisions of the Central Educational Institutions
(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, it has become necessary
to amend certain provisions of the Act. It is also proposed to clarify
that implementation of the Act has, in fact, taken effect from the
calendar year 2008 and not from the year 2007 as specified in
D section 6 of the Act.
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.”
[emphasis supplied]
22. The aforesaid Bill was placed before the Parliamentary
E Standing Committee on Human Resources Development7, that submitted
its 234th Report, which was tabled before both the Houses of the
Parliament on 26th February, 2011. The Standing Committee took note
of the Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending the Reservation
Act as reproduced hereinabove and also noticed the practical difficulties
faced by some of the CEIs in implementing the provisions of the
F Reservation Act as expressed by the Department of Higher Education.
The clarifications given by the Department of Higher Education for
proposing amendment to Section 3 of the Parent Act have been
summarized in paras 3.4 and 3.5 of the Report as below: -
“3.4 The Committee takes note of the following clarification
G given by the Department for bringing the proposed amendments
in Section 3: -
(i) State Seats, if any, in a Central Educational Institution (CEI)
situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the
7
H For short ‘ the Standing Committee’
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 501
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
Constitution shall be governed by the reservation policy of the A
concerned State Government in the matter of admissions of SCs,
STs and OBCs to that CEI.
(ii) In a CEI with no State seats, if the seats reserved for the
SCs exceed 15 per cent or the seats reserved for the STs exceed
7 .5 per cent or the seats reserved for the SCs and the STs taken B
together in a CEI exceed 22.5 per cent but fall short of 50 per
cent of the annual permitted strength, the percentage of seats
reserved for the OBCs shall be restricted to such shortfall.
(iii) In a CEI with no State Seats, if the seats reserved for SCs
or the STS or both taken together in a CEI exceed 50 per cent of C
the annual permitted strength, that CEI shall be exempt from
making any reservation for the OBCs. Further, if such a CEI is
situated in the north-eastern States, including Sikkim but excluding
the non-tribal areas of Assam, the percentage of seats reserved
for the SCs or the STs shall not be reduced from the level obtaining D
on the date immediately preceding the date of the commencement
of the Act; while in case of a CEI situated in other areas the
percentage of seats reserved for the SCs and STs in that CEI
shall stand reduced to 50 per cent.
3.5 While the Committee is convinced with the proposed E
amendment in Section 3, it would like to point out that there
are conceptual difficulties in determining the 13 OBC
reservation in the States. While the SC/ST reservation may
be definite, it is the OBC reservation which may differ from
State to State. The Committee is also aware of the fact that
reconciliation has to be made between 50 per cent cap on F
reservation and 27 per cent OBC quota. The Committee is
of the view that OBC percentage is to be decided by taking
SC and ST reservation as a compulsory component. Since
the extent of reservation is 50 per cent whatever remaining
after fulfilling the SC/ST reservation may go to OBCs.” G
23. The reasons for omitting Clause (a) of Section 4, which
exempted application of Section 3 of the Parent Act to a CEI established
in tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, was
discussed in paras and 3.8 of the Report in the following manner: -
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A “3.7 This clause seeks to omit clause (a) of section 4, thereby
withdrawing the exemption erroneously given to the CEIs
established in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to
the Constitution from implementing the reservation policy for SCs
and STs, if any, in force immediately preceding the date of the
coming into force of the principal Act.
B
3.8 On a specific query about the factors necessitating the
proposed amendment, the Committee was informed that as per
the existing provision, reservation policy for SCs, STs and OBCs
could not be considered to be applicable to CEIs established in
C the tribal areas. While the intention of the Government was to
exempt such CEIs from implementing 27 per cent reservation
introduced for the OBCs only, these institutions were inadvertently
exempted from reservation for SCs/STs as well, if any, in force,
immediately preceding the date of coming into force of the Act.
In view of the clarification given by the Department, the
D Committee accepts the proposed amendment so as to
remove any ambiguity with regard to specific ground
realities governing the CEls established in the Sixth
Schedule States.”
24. It is noteworthy that the Division Bench of the High Court of
E Meghalaya did discuss the 234th Report at page 24 of the judgment dated
20th April, 2017, in the context of the reasons offered by the learned
Single Judge in the earlier judgment dated 1st September, 2015 wherein
it was held that by an inference drawn from the said Report, one could
determine the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates for
F purposes of applying the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the
Parent Act post- amendment, but the appellate court was not persuaded
by the said logic.
25. It is no longer res integra that Reports and recommendations
made by the Parliamentary Committees/Commissions that precede
G enactment of a Statute can be used as external aids to interpret the
meaning of ambiguous words in a statutory provision wherever considered
necessary. It can also be taken note of as to the existence of a historical
fact. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that such Reports are
not decisive and a Court is free to arrive at a different conclusion based
on its own findings and other evidence produced by the parties. [Refer
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 503
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap 8, R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay9 and A
Kalpana Mehta and Others. v. Union of India and Others10]. For
our purpose, we do not intend to take notice of the said Report with an
idea of determining the extent of reservation for SC and ST candidates
in the light of the amendment by way of insertion to Section 3 of the
Parent Act. However, the said Report can be treated as a useful tool to
B
fathom the background in which the Amendment Act was introduced
and throw light on what had weighed with the legislating authorities in
proposing the amendments to the Reservation Act.
26. It can be discerned from the Statement of Objects and Reasons
appended to the Amendment Bill, the background notes submitted to the
C
Standing Committee by the Department of Higher Education and the
234th Report tabled by the Standing Committee in the Parliament that
some of the CEIs, in particular those situated in North Eastern States
having a pre- dominant tribal population, expressed their inability to reduce
the extent of reservation of seats for SCs and STs for ensuring reservation
of 27% of the seats for the OBC category, as stipulated in the Reservation D
Act. It can also be seen that the provisions of the Reservation Act as
they stood, exempted CEIs situated in tribal areas referred to in the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, from making any reservation for SCs
and STs, which as a matter of fact, was not the object behind introducing
the enactment. Recognising the fact that the composition of the population
E
in the North Eastern States ought to be given precedence, the Standing
Committee stated in its Report that while the extent of reservation of
seats for SCs/STs may be definite, OBC reservation may differ from
State to State. It was with the idea of reconciliating 50% cap on
reservation for SCs/STs and 27% for the OBC quota, that the Amendment
Bill was introduced primarily to remove the existing ambiguities and to F
overcome the difficulties that were being faced by the CEIs established
in the Sixth Schedule States, to accommodate the aspirations of a large
tribal population in that region.
27. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellants
cannot be heard to state that the amendments brought about in the G
Reservation Act by legislating the Amendment Act were only directed
towards tribal States covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution
8
(1974) 3 SCC 337
9
(1984) 2 SCC 183
10
(2018) 7 SCC 1 H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A and cannot be made applicable to the State of Manipur, even though the
definition of the expression “Specified north eastern region” introduced
by virtue of the amended Section 2(ia) encompasses the State of Manipur.
Nor is this Court persuaded by the submission made on behalf of the
appellants that the second proviso was inserted in Section 3 only to
make sure that the percentage of reservation provided for in Section 3(i)
B
and (ii) of the Parent Act would remain untouched. Accepting such a
submission would tantamount to negating the very aim and object of the
Amendment Act, which was enacted only to resolve the difficulties that
were being faced by the CEIs in implementing the Reservation Act when
it came to the North Eastern States, including the State of Manipur. The
C two provisos inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act are nothing but a
recognition of the demography of the North Eastern States covered under
the umbrella of “Specified north eastern region” which have a
substantial tribal population.
28. It is in the light of the aforesaid factors that it has been held in
D the impugned judgment that the respondent No. 1 – University was
correct in calculating the extent of reservation of seats in making
admissions to different courses, viz., 31% for ST candidates, 2% for SC
candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in line with the mandate
of the Amendment Act. The aforesaid understanding of the respondent
No. 1 – University is also reflected from the affidavit filed by it in
E opposition to the writ petition filed by the appellants, in particular, paras
5 and 9 thereof, which are extracted below for ready reference :
“5. That, in reply to the contents of the paragraph No. 4
of the writ petition under reply, it is submitted that in
view of the provisions of the Central Educational
F Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012 reservation of seats in respect of reserved
categories, candidates have to be 31%, 2% and 17%
in respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates respectively.
Thus, the seats reserved for SC have to be
G recalculated in accordance with the said Amendment
Act, and it was the same percentage of reservation
prevalent in the University prior to the
commencement of the Principal Act i.e. the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006. The distribution of seats/break-up for SC/ST/
H
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 505
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
OBC/UR based on the said proportion for reservation was A
intimated to the Secretary to His Excellency the Governor
of Manipur vide the letter dated 23- 07-2014, after obtaining
the approval/concurrence of the Heads i and Deans of all
subjects of the Manipur University.
XXX XXX XXX B
9. That, in reply to the contents of para No. 1O of the
writ petition under-reply, it is submitted, as stated in
the foregoing paragraphs that the Central Educational
‘Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act; 2006
has been adopted by the Manipur University from the C
Academic Session 2009-2010 by providing the quota
of seats to the candidates belonging to the reserved
categories in accordance with the said Act. It is to
state that after the enactment of the Amendment Act,
2012 the provision of Ordinance 5.2 ceased to exist
and the provision of the Act is to be implemented/ D
acted upon, as per the law.”
[emphasis supplied]
29. It can be understood from the aforesaid averments made in
the affidavit that on the date immediately preceding the date of E
commencement of the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 –
University had been reserving 2% seats for SC and 31% for ST
candidates for purposes of admission. It has been strenuously argued by
learned counsel for the appellants that the meaning ascribed to the words
“date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the 2006
Act”, used in Clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 3 should be F
taken to mean the date just before enactment of the Amendment Act,
i.e., a roll back to the situation as was prevalent when the Reservation
Act had come into force viz. 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for
OBC candidates. In our opinion, any such interpretation would strike at
the root of the Amendment Act which was legislated with the sole object G
of overcoming the ambiguities that had come to the fore on working out
the warp and woof of the Reservation Act, namely, the inability to meet
the aspirations of a large number of ST candidates looking for opportunities
to gain entry in CEIs located in the areas subsequently defined as the
“Specified north eastern region” in the Amendment Act.
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A 30. Once the two provisos were inserted in Section 3 of the Parent
Act by virtue of the Amendment Act, the general norms of reservation
as laid down in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act
had to be restricted in terms of the said provisos. While the first proviso
deals with “State seats”, if any, in a CEI situated in tribal areas referred
to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the second proviso addresses
B
a situation where there are no State seats in a CEI and the seats reserved
for the SC/ST candidates exceeds the percentage specified under Clauses
(i) and (ii) of Section 3 (viz., 15% seats for SCs plus 7.5% for STs,
totalling to 22.5% seats) or if the combined seats reserved for the SC
and ST candidates exceeds the sum total of the percentage as specified
C under Clauses (i) and (ii). Two riders have also been dovetailed in the
second proviso to Section 3, namely Clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a) of
the second proviso, contemplates a situation where seats referred to in
the second proviso are less than 50% of the annual permitted strength
on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act. Clause (b) provides for a situation where such seats
D
are over 50% of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. In a
situation contemplated in Clause (a) of the second proviso, a restriction
has been imposed on the total percentage of seats required to be reserved
for OBC candidates under Section 3(iii) of the Parent Act by limiting
E them to the balance seats available after factoring in the combined
percentage of seats specified in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the
Parent Act, falling short of 50% of the annual permitted strength. But in
circumstances contemplated in Clause (b), the Act recognizes the fact
that no seats need be reserved for the OBC candidates under Clause
(iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. However, this is subject to the condition
F
that the extent of reservation of seats for SC and ST candidates shall
not be reduced when it comes to CEIs established in “Specified north
eastern region”. This goes to demonstrate that the underlying intent of
the Amendment Act was to secure a particular percentage of seats
through reservation for a set of candidates and leave some space for
G capping of seats for OBC candidates, depending on the circumstances
contemplated in Clauses (a) and (b) of the second proviso to the amended
Section 3.
31. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 – University has
clarified in its affidavit that prior to commencement of the Reservation
H Act, the prevalent percentage of reservation for ST and SC candidates
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR 507
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
was 31% and 2% respectively. Nothing to the contrary has been brought A
forth by the appellant. That being the position, we are in complete
agreement with the findings returned in the impugned judgment that the
respondent No. 1 – University was right in reverting back to the position
obtaining immediately before the commencement of the Reservation
Act by reserving seats in respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, pegged
B
at 31%, 2% and 17% respectively which was in consonance with the
Manipur State Reservation Policy.
32. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants
that the respondent No. 1 – University was under a mandate to follow
the norms provided under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent
C
Act while giving a complete go by to the provisos inserted in the said
provision by virtue of the Amendment Act which, as per the learned
counsel, could be applied only to determine the percentage of seats
required to be reserved for OBC candidates, is devoid of merits and
turned down. To our mind, the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in
making the observation that the formulae for fixing the percentage of D
reservation for the SC and ST candidates and for determining the
percentage of seats to be reserved for OBC candidates under the second
proviso of Section 3, ought to be gathered from the same source and
any other interpretation would lead to uncertainty.
33. To put it differently, the reference point of the period for E
determining the reservation quota for OBC candidates must be the same
as that of the SC and ST candidates for the simple reason that for working
out the reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessarily require
one to find out in the first instance, as to what would be the difference
between 50% of the annual permitted strength and the combined existing
F
percentage for the SC and ST candidates, as obtained on the date
immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation
Act. Both the issues are so interlaced that to determine the percentage
of reservation for OBC candidates, one would have to undertake an
exercise of determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for SC
and ST candidates, all within the four corners of the second proviso G
inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act. Any other interpretation sought
to be assigned to the second proviso to Section 3 inserted post-
amendment, would make the proviso itself unworkable and redundant
and is, therefore, impermissible. Thus, we make it clear that the general
rules of reservation have been encapsulated in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii)
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A of Section 3 of the Parent Act. But when it comes to CEIs established in
States falling under the definition of “Specified north eastern region”,
categorized in Section 2(ia) introduced by the Amendment Act, the two
new provisos appended to Section 3 would govern the norms of
reservation which prescribes a different criteria, vis-à-vis the main
provision and would apply irrespective of whether they are situated in
B
areas covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal fails and the
impugned judgment is upheld. We endorse the view taken by the learned
Single Judge that after amendment of the Reservation Act, the respondent
No. 1 – University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC
C candidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which
is in consonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation
Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act.
35. The appeal is accordingly dismissed while leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
D
Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "reservation"Sign in to search