VOICE (CONSUMER CARE) COUNCILversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

                VOICE (CONSUMER CARE) COUNCIL                                     A
                                      v.
                        STATE OF TAMIL NADU

                             AUGUST 14, 1996

        [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AN K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]                              B

        Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Reservation of Seats in Educational !11stitutio11s and of appointments orposts
i11 the Services under the State) Act, 1993 :

       State of Tamil Nadu-Medical E11ginee1i11g and other Educational
                                                                                  c
institutions-Extent of reservation-Rese1vatio11 in favour of backward classes,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tlibe~Removal of Glievance of general
category candidates-Order directing creatio11 of additional seats passed by
Supreme Cowt for academic year 1995-96-Another order passed for applica-
tion of earlier order for academic year 1996-97-Application filed by State for D
modification of order and seeking pennission to implemellt the provisions of
1993 Act-State Govt. giving figures for academic years 1993-94 and 1994-
95-Date revealing that more than 80% seats in general category were taken
by students of backward class 011 their own nierit-Held there w~· no reason
to modify the eariier orde,-Heid earlier order only upheld the rule of 50'!1o
reservation ceiling 011 reservation-It also operated to the benefit of a number   E
of backward class students.

      Indra Sawhney v. U11io11 of India, (1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217, referred
to.

      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION                  Interlocutory Application      F
No. 18 of 1996.

                       IN

      Contempt Petition No. 79 of 1994.
                                                                                  G
                       IN

      Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13526 of 1993.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.93 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No. 10016 of 1993.                                  H
                                 647
    648                  SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996]SUPP.4S.C.R.

A         V. Krishnamurthy for Applicant/State of Tamil Nadu.

          KV. Mohan, Shailendra Bhardwaj, A.F. Julian for Arputham, Aruna
    & Co., Ajit Kumar Sinha, R.N. Keshwani, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, A.T.M.
    Sampath, V. Balachandran, M.T. George, P. Parmeswaran and T.R. Raja
    for the Respondent/Opposite Side.
B
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          This application is filed by the State of Tamil Nadu requesting for
    modification of the Order dated July 22, 1996 and to permit the State
c   Government to implement the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Backward
    Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in
    Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under
    the State) Act, 1993.

          By Order dated JUiy 22, 1996, this Court had directed inter alia that
D   "order dated 18.8.94 shall apply and continue to apply for the academic
    year 1996-97 as well." This direction was made because this Court was of
    the opinion that "the same order and directions which were made for the
    academic year 1995-96 with respect to the extent of reservation in the
    matter of ad1nission to Medical, Engineering and other educational institu-
    tions in Tamil Nadu shall be continued this year also."
E
          The purport of tht Order dated August 18, 1994 is this :

          First, make the admissions applying the rule of 69% reservation in
    favour of Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
F   Second, the additional seats created by virtue of the Orders of this Court
    be filled with the general category candidates. The number of seats so
    created was equal to the number of seats which the general candidates
    would have got if the rule of fifty percent total reservation had been
    applied.

G          This order in effect respected the rule of 69 per cent devised by the
     Government of Tamil Nadu-and sanctioned by Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994
     - while, at the same time, removing the grievance of the general category
     candidates by creating additional seats for them for that year. In other
     words, the sanctioned strength of seats in every college are being allotted
H    exclusively in accordance with the sixty nine percent reservation rule. Only
                VOICE (CONSUMER CARE) COUNCIL v. STATE                      649

      the additional seats, which -are created by and only because of the Orders A
      of this Court are being provided to general category candidates on the basis
      of merit, which category includes Backward Clauses, Scheduled Castes and
     Scheduled Tribes as well. It is significant to notice in this connection that
      according to the figures supplied by the Government of Tamil Nadu for
     the Academic Years 1993-94 and 1994-95, more than eighty percent of the B
     seats in the general category are being taken aw~y by the students belong-
     ing to Backward Classes on the basis of their own merit. As fully explained
      and illustrated in the Order dated August 18, 1994, the students belonging
     to Backward Classes are getting fifty percent of the total seats on the basis
     of reservation and more than 80 per cent of seats in the general category
     (open competition category) on the basis of their own merit. There is no C
     reason to believe that the situation is different this year. Thus, the bulk of
     the additional seats directed to be created by this Court year after year
     (since 1994-95) are again going to students belonging to Backward Classes.
     The Order of this Court is thus not only upholding the rule of fifty percent
     ceiling on reservation affirmed by the Special Bench of this Court In I11dia D
     Sawhney v. Unio11 of India, [1992] Suppl. 3 S.C.C. 217 but is in truth
     operating to the advantage and benefit of a number of Backward Class
     students. Many of the Backward Class students, along with certain other
     candidates belonging to non-reserved categories, who would not have
     other\\•ise got admission into these courses, are getting seats by virtue of E
     these Orders. And yet it is surprising to note the Government of Tamil
     Nadu has chosen to ask for modification of the Order dated July 22, 1996.
     The said order is only interlocutory in nature. Pending decision of the
     several constitutional and legal questions raised in these matters, it was
     supposed to be an equitable order harming no one. It at all, it benefited
     some who would not have been able to obtain admission otherwise and F
     surely that fact cannot be a ground of grievance for the State of Tamil
    ·Nadu. Only as an interim measure, certain additional seats are being
     created and they are being allotted to general category candidates - which
     in Tamil Nadu really means providing the bulk of them to students belong-
     ing to Backward Classes.                                                       G
-          We do not wish to refer to or comment upon several averments made
    in this application with respect to the alleged negligence and inaction of
    the previous Government of Tamil Nadu nor with the order submissions
    mentioned therein since none of them are really relevant for the purposes
                                                                                  H
    650                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   of this application. The main argument before us was based upon the
    aforesaid Tamil Nadu Act and its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule to the
    Constitution. We have already dealt with the said argument. Accordingly,
    we see no reason to modify our order dated July 22, 1996. IA is dismissed.

          It shall be open to the State of Tamil Nadu to request the Hon'ble
B the Chief Justice of India for an early posting of these matters, which have
    already been referred to the Constitution Bench.

    T.N.A.                                                 Petition dismissed.




                                                                                 -