SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH AND ANR.V. THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS. versus THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS. on 5 January 2022

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 479

SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH AND ANR.

v.

THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.(Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2022)

JANUARY 05, 2022

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions – Central EducationalInstitutions (Reservation in admission) Act, 2006 (as amended in2012) – Reservation of seats in State University which wassubsequently converted into a Central University – Whether theAmendment Act of 2012 was legislated to ensure that the reservationfor 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 thepercentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates earmarked ins.3 of Parent Act could be increased even to the detriment of theearmarked percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, to ensurethat the over all 50% reservation for SC and ST taken collectively,is not disturbed in any manner – Held: The Amendment Act wasenacted only to resolve the difficulties that were being faced by theCentral Educational Institutions in implementing the ReservationAct when it came to the North Eastern States, including the State ofManipur – The two provisos inserted in s.3 of the Parent Act arenothing but a recognition of the demography of the North EasternStates covered under the umbrella of “Specified north easternregion” which have a substantial tribal population – After theamendment of the Parent Reservation Act of 2006, ManipurUniversity had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SCcandidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidateswhich is in consonance with the 2[nd] proviso to s.3 of the ParentReservation Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act of 2012.

Parliamentary Committees Reports: Reports andrecommendations made by the Parliamentary Committees/Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute can be used asexternal aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguous words in astatutory provision wherever considered necessary – It can also be

A

B

CDEF

G

H

Ataken note of as to the existence of a historical fact – At the sametime, it must be borne in mind that such Reports are not decisiveand a Court is free to arrive at a different conclusion based on itsown findings and other evidence produced by the parties.

Dismissing the appeal, the CourtB

HELD: 1. Respondent No. 1 – University was originallyestablished as a ‘State University’ in the year 1980 under theManipur University Act No. 8 of 1980. As a State University,respondent No. 1 – University was following the Manipur Statereservation policy by reserving 2% seats for SC candidates andC31% for ST candidates for admission into various courses. On13th October, 2005, the respondent No. 1 – University wasconverted into a ‘Central University’ under the ManipurUniversity Act No. 54 of 2005. After conversion too, respondentNo. 1 - University continued following the Manipur StateReservation Policy, i.e., 2% for SC and 31% for ST for admissionDupto the academic session 2008-2009. On 3rd January, 2007, theReservation Act came into force. Pursuant thereto, therespondent No. 1 – University started following the reservationpolicy 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 sessionE2009-2010 onwards. A shift in reservation came on amendmentof 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 inAdmission) Amendment Bill, 2010 was placed before theFParliamentary Standing Committee on Human ResourcesDevelopment that submitted its 234th Report, which was tabledbefore both the Houses of the Parliament on 26th February, 2011.The Standing Committee took note of the Statement of Objectsand Reasons for amending the Reservation Act and also noticedthe practical difficulties faced by some of the CEIs in implementingGthe provisions of the Reservation Act as expressed by theDepartment of Higher Education. [Paras 21, 22][499-A;500-E-F]

3. Reports and recommendations made by the ParliamentaryCommittees/Commissions that precede enactment of a StatuteH

can be used as external aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguouswords 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 isfree to arrive at a different conclusion based on its own findingsand other evidence produced by the parties. [Para 25][502-G-H]

4. It can be discerned from the Statement of Objects andReasons appended to the Amendment Bill, the background notessubmitted to the Standing Committee by the Department ofHigher Education and the 234th Report tabled by the StandingCommittee in the Parliament that some of the CEIs, in particularthose situated in North Eastern States having a predominant tribalpopulation, expressed their inability to reduce the extent ofreservation of seats for SCs and STs for ensuring reservation of27% of the seats for the OBC category, as stipulated in theReservation Act. It can also be seen that the provisions of theReservation Act as they stood, exempted CEIs situated in tribalareas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, frommaking any reservation for SCs and STs, which as a matter offact, was not the object behind introducing the enactment.Recognising the fact that the composition of the population inthe North Eastern States ought to be given precedence, theStanding Committee stated in its Report that while the extent ofreservation of seats for SCs/STs may be definite, OBC reservationmay differ from State to State. It was with the idea of reconciliating50% cap on reservation for SCs/STs and 27% for the OBC quota,that the Amendment Bill was introduced primarily to remove theexisting ambiguities and to overcome the difficulties that werebeing faced by the CEIs established in the Sixth Schedule States,to accommodate the aspirations of a large tribal population inthat region. [Para 26][503-C-F]

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellants cannot be heardto state that the amendments brought about in the ReservationAct by legislating the Amendment Act were only directed towardstribal States covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitutionand cannot be made applicable to the State of Manipur, eventhough the definition of the expression “Specified north eastern AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aregion” introduced by virtue of the amended Section 2(ia)encompasses the State of Manipur. Nor is this Court persuadedby the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the secondproviso was inserted in Section 3 only to make sure that thepercentage of reservation provided for in Section 3(i) and (ii) ofthe Parent Act would remain untouched. Accepting such aBsubmission would tantamount to negating the very aim and objectof the Amendment Act, which was enacted only to resolve thedifficulties that were being faced by the CEIs in implementingthe Reservation Act when it came to the North Eastern States,including the State of Manipur. The two provisos inserted in SectionC3 of the Parent Act are nothing but a recognition of thedemography of the North Eastern States covered under theumbrella of “Specified north eastern region” which have asubstantial tribal population. [Para 27][503-G-H; 504-A-D]

6. Once the two provisos were inserted in Section 3 of theDParent Act by virtue of the Amendment Act, the general normsof reservation as laid down in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3of 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 CEIsituated in tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to theConstitution, the second proviso addresses a situation where thereEare no State seats in a CEI and the seats reserved for the SC/STcandidates 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 forthe SC and ST candidates exceeds the sum total of the percentageFas specified under Clauses (i) and (ii). Two riders have also beendovetailed in the second proviso to Section 3, namely Clauses (a)and (b). Clause (a) of the second proviso, contemplates a situationwhere 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.GClause (b) provides for a situation where such seats are over50% of the annual permitted strength on the date immediatelypreceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Ina situation contemplated in Clause (a) of the second proviso, a H

restriction has been imposed on the total percentage of seatsrequired to be reserved for OBC candidates under Section 3(iii)of the Parent Act by limiting them to the balance seats availableafter factoring in the combined percentage of seats specified inClauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act, falling short of50% of the annual permitted strength. But in circumstancescontemplated in Clause (b), the Act recognizes the fact that noseats need be reserved for the OBC candidates under Clause(iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. However, this is subject to thecondition that the extent of reservation of seats for SC and STcandidates shall not be reduced when it comes to CEIs establishedin “Specified north eastern region”. This goes to demonstrate thatthe underlying intent of the Amendment Act was to secure aparticular percentage of seats through reservation for a set ofcandidates and leave some space for capping of seats for OBCcandidates, depending on the circumstances contemplated inClauses (a) and (b) of the second proviso to the amendedSection 3. [Para 30][506-A-G]

7. In the instant case, the respondent No.1-University hasclarified in its affidavit that prior to commencement of theReservation Act, the prevalent percentage of reservation for STand SC candidates was 31% and 2% respectively. Nothing to thecontrary has been brought forth by the appellant. That being theposition, the respondent No.1-University was right in revertingback to the position obtaining immediately before thecommencement of the Reservation Act by reserving seats inrespect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, pegged at 31%, 2% and17% respectively which was in consonance with the Manipur StateReservation Policy. [Para 31][506-G-H; 507-A-B]

8. The reference point of the period for determining thereservation quota for OBC candidates must be the same as thatof the SC and ST candidates for the simple reason that for workingout the reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessarilyrequire one to find out in the first instance, as to what would bethe difference between 50% of the annual permitted strengthand the combined existing percentage for the SC and STcandidates, as obtained on the date immediately preceding the AB

C

D

E

FG

H

Adate of commencement of the Reservation Act. Both the issuesare so interlaced that to determine the percentage of reservationfor OBC candidates, one would have to undertake an exercise ofdetermining the percentage of seats to be reserved for SC andST candidates, all within the four corners of the second provisoinserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act. Any other interpretationBsought to be assigned to the second proviso to Section 3 insertedpost-amendment, would make the proviso itself unworkable andredundant and is, therefore, impermissible. Thus, the generalrules of reservation have been encapsulated in Clauses (i), (ii)and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. But when it comes toCCEIs established in States falling under the definition of “Specifiednorth eastern region”, categorized in Section 2(ia) introduced bythe Amendment Act, the two new provisos appended to Section 3would govern the norms of reservation which prescribes adifferent criteria, vis-à-vis the main provision and would applyirrespective of whether they are situated in areas covered by theDSixth Schedule to the Constitution or not. After amendment ofthe Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 – University had tofollow the reservation norms of 2% for SC candidates, 31% forST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is inconsonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the ReservationEAct 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 SCC183 : [1984] 2 SCR 495; Kalpana Mehta and Others.Fv. Union of India and Others (2018) 7 SCC 1 : [2018]4 SCR 1 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.163 of2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2017 of the High Courtof Manipur at Imphal in

W. P. (C) No.753 of 2014.

Ms. Punam Kumari, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Advs. for theAppellants.

Sanjay Jain, ASG, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ms. Shuchi Singh, KrishnaKant Dubey, Vivek Kumar Pandey, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Pankaj Singh,Gurmeet Singh Makker, Apoorv Kurup, Kush Chaturvedi, Ms. SwarupmaChaturvedi, Anukalp Jain, Balaji Srinivasan, Ashutosh Dubey, AbhishekChauhan, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Arun Nagar, Amit P. Shahi, ShivendraDwivedi, Rajesh Mahale, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIMA KOHLI, J.

Leave granted.

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21[st] 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 afterthe amendment of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation inAdmission) Act, 2006[1], in the year 2012, on introduction of the CentralEducational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act,2012[2], respondent No. 1 - Manipur University[3] is required to follow thereservation norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste[SC], 31% for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the OtherBackward Classes [OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.

2. To contextualize the issue raised in the present appeal, it isnecessary to briefly refer to the relevant facts of the case. Respondentno. 1- University was initially established as a ‘State University’ underthe Manipur University Act, 1980 that came into force on 05[th] June,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’

B

C

D

G

H

AUniversity’ to a ‘Central University’ w.e.f. 13[th] October, 2005. On 04[th]January, 2007, the Reservation Act was notified. Section 3 of the saidAct prescribed reservation of seats in the Central Educational Institutionsand laid down as follows:

“3. Reservation of seats in Central EducationalBInstitutions.–

The reservation of seats in admission and its extent in a CentralEducational Institution shall be provided in the following manner,namely:- iout of the annual permitted strength in each branch of studyCor faculty, fifteen per cent. seats shall be reserved forthe Scheduled Castes; iiout of the annual permitted strength in each branch of studyor faculty, seven and one-half per cent. seats shall bereserved for the Scheduled Tribes;D

iii.out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of studyor faculty, twenty-seven per cent. seats shall bereserved for the Other Backward Classes.”

E3. The expression “out of the annual permitted strength”referred to in Section 3 above, has been defined in Section 2(b) in thefollowing words:

“2. Definitions:-

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-F

xxxxxxxxx

b. “annual permitted strength” means the number of seats, ina course or programme for teaching or instruction in each branchof study or faculty authorised by an appropriate authority forGadmission of students to a Central Educational Institution; xxxxxxxxx”

4. From the academic year 2009-10 onwards, respondent No. 1 –University started following the reservation norms as prescribed in theReservation Act. On 20[th] June, 2012, the aforesaid Statute was amendedHby virtue of the Amendment Act and as a result of the said amendment,

Clauses (ia) and (ib) were inserted in Section 2, i.e. the definition clauseand two provisos were inserted in Section 3. Further, Clause (a) of Section4 was omitted and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 were amended.The aforesaid Amendment Act, 2012 that forms the bedrock of thegrievance raised in the present appeal, is extracted below for readyreference:

“THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS(RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) AMENDMENTACT,2012

NO. 31 OF 2012 [19th June, 2012]

PREAMBLE

An Act to amend the Central Educational Institutions(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 Be it enacted by Parliamentin the Sixty-third Year of the Republic of India as follows: - SECTION - 1. Short title.-This Act may be called the CentralEducational institutions (Reservation in Admission) AmendmentAct, 2012.

SECTION - 2. Amendment of section 2 -In section 2 of theCentral Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,2006 (5 of 2007) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act),after clause (i), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely:- (ia) “Specified north-eastern region” means the areacomprising of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura and thetribal areas of Assam referred to in the Sixth Schedule tothe Constitution; (ib) “State seats”, in relation to a Central Educational Institution,means such seats, if any, out of the annual permitted strength ineach branch of study or faculty as are earmarked to be filledfrom amongst the eligible students of the State in which suchinstitution is situated;

SECTION -3. Amendment of section 3.- In section 3 of theprincipal Act, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:-”Provided that the State seats, if any, in a Central EducationalInstitution situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Schedule to the Constitution shall be governed by such reservationpolicy for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and theOther Backward Classes, as may be specified, by notification inthe Official Gazette, by the Government of the State where suchinstitution is situated:

A

BProvided further that if there are no State seats in a CentralEducational Institution and the seats reserved for theScheduled castes exceed the percentage specified underclause (i) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribesexceed the percentage specified under clause (ii) or theseats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledCTribes taken together exceed the sum of percentagesspecified under clauses (i) and (ii), but such seats are- (a) less than fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strengthon the date immediately preceding the date of commencementof this Act, the total percentage of the seats required to bereserved for the Other Backward Classes under clause (iii)shall be restricted to the extent such sum of percentagesspecified under clauses (i) and (ii) falls short of fifty percent. of the annual permitted strength,; D

(b) more than fifty per cent. of the annual permitted strength onthe date immediately preceding the date of commencement ofthis Act, in that case no seat shall be reserved for the OtherBackward Classes under clause (iii) but the extent of thereservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes shall not be reduced in respect of Central EducationalInstitutions in the specified north-eastern region.”.

E

F

SECTION - 4. Amendment of section 4.-In section 4 of theprincipal Act, clause (a) shall be omitted.

SECTION - 5. Amendment of section 5.-In section 5 of theprincipal Act, - (a) in sub-section (1), for the words “number ofsuch seats available”, the words “number of such seats availableor actually filled, wherever be less, shall be substituted; G

(b) in sub-section (2), for the words “three years”, the words “sixyears” shall be substituted.”

H

SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPURUNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]

5. Relying on the provision of reservation made under Section 3of the Reservation Act, Respondent No. 1 – University promulgatedOrdinance 5.2, that prescribes rules relating to admission to the Universityand Ordinance 5.4 deals with reservation of seats and other specialprovisions for admission to the University, both in the year 2014. Rule 18of Ordinance 5.2 reads as below:

“18. 15% of the seats in the academic programmes offeredby the University shall be reserved for students belongingto Scheduled Caste, 7-1/2 % for students belonging toScheduled Tribe and 27% for students belonging to OtherBackward Classes.

Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to preventthe University from making special provisions for admission ofwomen, persons with disabilities or of persons belonging to theweaker sections of the society and, in particular, of the ScheduledCastes, the Scheduled Tribes and the other socially andeducationally backward classes of citizens.

Provided further that no such special provision shall be made onthe ground of domicile.”

6. While Rule 1 of Ordinance 5.4 deals with reservation of seats,Rule 2 deals with reservation of seats for students belonging to SC &ST categories. Respondent No. 1 – University has stipulated in Rule 2.1of Ordinance 5.4 as below:

“2. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 22.5% of seats in all Courses will be reserved for Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes candidates in the following order:

2.115% of seats will be reserved for Scheduled Castesand 7.5% Scheduled Tribes. 27% of seats will bereserved for OBC. “

7. For the academic year 2014-15, respondent No. 1- Universityissued a prospectus, stating inter alia that seats shall be reserved as perthe Government of India norms. In the Press Release dated 24[th] July,2014, respondent No. 1 – University clarified that for conductingadmissions for the academic year 2014-15, reservation will be providedto the extent of 2% for SC category, 31% for ST category and 17% forOBC category.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8. Aggrieved by the denial of admission to them, the appellants,who are candidates belonging to the SC category and had applied foradmission in various Post Graduate courses, questioned the purportedreduction of the quota for SC category candidates from 15%, asprescribed in Section 3 of the Reservation Act to 2% and filed a writpetition in the High Court of Manipur which was disposed of by theBlearned Single Judge vide order dated 01[st] September, 2015, holdinginter alia that the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates,as was applied to the respondent No. 1 – University prior to thecommencement of the Reservation Act, would be adopted fordetermination of percentage of reservation for the reserved categoriesCin question. It was specifically directed that the percentage of reservationfor the students belonging to the SC, ST and OBC categories in theUniversity, would be 2%, 31% and 17% respectively for admission tovarious courses. However, the Court declined to go into the actualcalculation of the seats notified as reserved by the respondent No. 1 –University and confined itself to the principles to be adopted forDdetermination of percentage of reservation of seats on which basis,calculation of the seats had to be made.

9. Dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment dated 01[st] September,2015, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 40 of 2015 before the HighCourt of Manipur at Imphal. As no Division Bench was available due toEpaucity of Judges in the said Court, recourse was taken to filing a TransferPetition before this Court, which was allowed and the captioned writappeal was transferred to the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong foradjudication by a Division Bench and was re-numbered as Writ AppealNo. 83 of 2016.F[[th]]

10. Vide judgment dated 20[[th]] April, 2017, the Division Bench ofthe High Court of Meghalaya remanded the matter back to the learnedSingle Judge of the Manipur High Court for consideration afresh andcalled upon the said Court to examine and decide the percentage ofreservation for SC, ST and OBC categories in the light of the secondGproviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act [as amended videAmendment Act] and the effect of Ordinance 5.2 and Ordinance 5.4,promulgated by the respondent No. 1 – University. It is on remand thatthe impugned judgment dated 21[st] August, 2017 has been passed by theHigh Court of Manipur, the concluding para whereof is extracted belowfor ready reference:H

“[71] This Court accordingly, concludes and directs as follows:

(i) This Court holds, as also held by Hon’ble Division Bench, thatthe Second Proviso provides the formulae for working out thepercentage of reservation for the OBCs in the Institutions locatedin the States within the specified north eastern region which is tobe worked out on the basis of the figures of percentages for theSCs and STs existing on the date immediately preceding the dateof commencement of the Act of 2006.

(ii) It is this set of figures of percentages for the SCs and STsexisting on the date immediately preceding the date ofcommencement of the Act of 2006 ascertained and used forworking out the percentage of reservation for the OBCs, whichwould also be the percentages of reservation for admission forthe SCs and STs after the amendment of the Central EducationalInstitutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 by the CentralEducational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) AmendmentAct, 2012, and the Institute or the Manipur University cannotanymore invoke Clause (i) and (ii) of Section 3 to determine thereservation 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 theHon’ble Division Bench had held that, once the aforesaid set offigures of percentages for SCs and STs existing on the dateimmediately preceding the date of commencement of the Act of2006 have been ascertained and used for working out thepercentage of reservation for the OBCs, this set has to be jettisonedand ignored and the Institute. (Manipur University in this case)can go back to Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 to determine thereservation of reservation for the SCs and STs independent of thefigures used under the Second Proviso after the amendment ofthe Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)Act, 2006 in 2012.

Neither the Act, nor the Hon’ble Division Bench has statedthat irrespective of the formula for ascertaining the percentage ofreservation for the OBCs as provided under the Second Provisoto Section 3 of the Act after the amendment in 2012, the Institutehas to apply Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Act to fix thepercentage of reservation for the SCs and STs.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(iv) Second Proviso was specifically inserted for the CentralEducational Institutions located in the specified North EasternRegion for protecting the interest of STs, particularly as evidentfrom the Clause (b) of the Second Proviso. It protects the interestof the STs wherever, their percentage of reservation is more thanwhat is prescribed under Clause (ii) of Section 3 of the Act. TheAct specifically provides that even if the extent of reservation ofseats of the STs & SCs exceed 50% of the annual permittedstrength on the date immediately preceding the date ofcommencement of the Act, there shall not be reservation for theOBCs under Clause (3) but, the extent of reservation of seats forSTs & SCs shall not be reduced.

(v) The Institute has to determine the percentages of reservationfor admission for the SCs, STs and OBCs on the basis of theCentral Educational institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,2006 as amended in 2012 and not on the basis of any other statute.In the present case, the Manipur University has to fix thepercentages of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs on thebasis of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation inAdmission) Act, 2006 as amended in 2012 and not on the basis ofSection 31(1)(a) or any other provision of the Manipur UniversityAct, 2005 as the Manipur University Act is no more the source ofauthority for determining the percentages of reservation after theimplementation of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservationin Admission) Act, 2006.

(vi) The reservation norm has to be adopted by the ManipurUniversity by referring to the Central Educational Institutions(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 as amended by the CentralEducational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) AmendmentAct, 2012 only and by not referring to any provision of the ManipurUniversity Act, 2005.

(vii) Accordingly, any Statute or Ordinance or any rule or notificationfixing the percentage of reservation for admission framed/issuedby the Manipur University has to conform to the aforesaid normof 2% for the Scheduled Castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribesand 17% for the Other Backward Classes worked out andascertained in terms of the Second Proviso to Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,2006 as amended in 2012. Any other norm not conforming to theabove will be invalid being in contravention of the Central EducationInstitutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 as amended in2012.

(viii) Ordinances 5.2 and 5.4 made by the Manipur University asfar as determining the percentages of reservation for the SCs,STs and OBCs are concerned, are not valid. Hence, these haveno value, worth or effect as far as the issue of determination ofthe percentages of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs inManipur University is concerned.

(ix) In any event, it has not been shown by these Ordinances,how the Manipur University had fixed the percentage ofreservation for the OBCs at 27% in the face of the formulaespecifically provided under the Second Proviso for working outthe percentage of reservation for the OBCs and also for the SCsand STs. To that extent, these Ordinances also suffer from thevice of arbitrariness.

(x) The validity of these Ordinances relating to other matters,other than fixation of percentage of reservation for admission ofstudents, not being an issue in this petition, is left open to be decidedin appropriate case.

(xi) Before the implementation of the Central EducationalInstitutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, ManipurUniversity was following the reservation norm of 2% forthe Scheduled Castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes and17% for the Other Backward Classes.

(xii) After the implementation of the Central EducationalInstitutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, ManipurUniversity started following the reservation norm as perClauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Act to the extentof 15% for the Scheduled Castes, 7.5% for the ScheduledTribes, and 27% for the Other Backward Classes from theacademic year 2009-2010.

(xiii) After the amendment of the Central EducationalInstitutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 in 2012introduced by the Central Educational Institutions A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A(Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012,Manipur University has to follow the reservation norm of2% for the Scheduled castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribesand 17% for the Other Backward Classes.”

[emphasis supplied]

B

11. Ms. Punam Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants hasassailed the impugned judgment contending that the High Court has erredin taking a view that the proviso inserted vide the Amendment Act,would be applicable to a Central Educational Institution[4] located in Statesfalling within the “Specified north eastern region” and that the extentCof reservation would have to be worked out on the basis of the figures ofpercentage for the SCs and STs, as was existing on the date immediatelypreceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act. It is hersubmission that the amendments brought about by the Amendment Actare only in respect of tribal States falling under the purview of the SixthSchedule to the Constitution of India[5] and not in respect of other StatesDincluding a State like Manipur falling under “Specified north easternregion”, defined in the amended Section 2 (ia) of the Parent Act[Reservation Act].

12. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to draw a distinctionbetween the amended Section 2 (ia) that defines “Specified northEeastern region” and the amended Section 3 by virtue of the AmendmentAct by urging that clause (ia) of Section 2 has been inserted only togroup together all North Eastern States, irrespective of whether theyfall under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not, whereas Section3 makes a separate provision for a tribal State. She submitted that theFsecond proviso was inserted in Section 3 only to ensure that thepercentage of reservation provided for in Section 3 (i) and (ii) of theReservation Act that laid down the percentage of reservation of seatsfor SC and ST candidates as 15% and 7.5% respectively, were to bemaintained and not that the same could be increased or decreased bythe CEI in a “Specified north eastern region”. It was canvassed thatGthe group of States defined in Section 2 (ia) as “Specified north easternregion”, have been created by the Amendment Act with the specificpurpose of protecting the interest of SC and ST candidates belonging to 4 For short “the CEI”H5 For short “the Constitution”

5 For short “the Constitution”

other North Eastern States that are not tribal States and contrary to thesaid provision, respondent No. 1 – University has reduced the quota ofseats for SC candidates, which is impermissible.

13. It was further sought to be pointed out on behalf of the appellantsthat amendment to Section 3 of the Reservation Act was necessitatedonly because Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act, stood omitted by theAmendment Act. Pertinently, Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act as itstood prior to the amendment, stated that the provision of Section 3 ofthe Act would not apply to a CEI established in tribal areas, referred toin the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. It was submitted that the intentionof the Legislature in amending the Reservation Act by introducing theAmendment Act was not to make the amendments applicable to CEIssituated in non- tribal States like the State of Manipur and the expression“on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement ofthe Reservation Act”, as used in the second proviso to Section 3 ofthe Act, qualifies the expression “annual permitted strength” as usedin Section 3 and defined in Section 2(b) of the Parent Act and not theextent of reservation.

14. To sum up, it is the contention of learned counsel for theappellants that the Amendment Act was legislated to ensure thatreservation for SC and ST candidates as prescribed in Section 3 of theParent Act, should not be reduced from the benchmark of 15% and7.5% respectively. Rather, the Amendment Act contemplates that thepercentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates earmarked in Section3 of the Parent Act could be increased even to the detriment of theearmarked percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, to ensurethat the overall limit of 50% reservation for SC and ST candidates takencollectively, is not disturbed in any manner.

15. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appearedfor the respondent No. 5 - Union of India that has filed a counter affidavitthrough the Ministry of Human Resource Development. In its counteraffidavit, Union of India has supported the findings returned in theimpugned judgment to the effect that the percentage of reservation forSC and ST candidates was existing and being applied by the respondentNo. 1 – University when it was a ‘State University’, before thecommencement of the Reservation Act, viz. 31% for STs and 2% forSCs which was required to be adopted for determination of the percentage AB

CDE

F

G

H

AB

CDE

F

G

H

Aof reservation for ST and SC candidates in the University and that thepercentage of reservation for OBC candidates was to be restricted tothe extent of the percentages of reservation for the ST and SC candidatestaken collectively, provided it falls short of 50% of the annual permittedstrength, as provided under clause (a) of the second proviso to theamended Section 3 of the Reservation Act. It is the stand of the UnionBof India that the percentage of reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidateshas been correctly pegged at 2%, 31% and 17% respectively for admissionto various courses in the respondent No. 1 – University, since the samepercentage was applicable immediately preceding the date ofcommencement of the Reservation Act.

C

16. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofrespondent No. 7, an ST category candidate has supported the standtaken by the respondent No. 5 - Union of India and submitted that theplea of the appellants for restoration of minimum 15% reservation forSC students is impermissible. He argued that the respondent No. 1 –DUniversity is a ‘Central University’ and is governed by the Rules andRegulations of the Central Government which in this case, translatesinto the Reservation Act. He clarified that the respondent No. 1 –University had the status of a ‘State University’ only till the year 2005and at that point in time, it was following the then prevalent rules ofreservation in the State of Manipur viz. 2% for SC candidates and 31%Efor 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 year2005 and was thereafter governed under the Reservation Act whichcame into force w.e.f. 03[rd] January, 2007. On being designated as aFCentral University, respondent No. 1 – University discontinued thereservation norms of the State Government and started following thereservation norms provided under Section 3 of the Reservation Act i.e.,15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs. Learned counsel clarifiedthat the respondent No. 1 – University was not covered under theexemption clause provided under Section 4 (a) of the Parent Act thatGwas subsequently repealed since the University is not an “institutionestablished in tribal areas”, referred to in the Sixth Schedule to theConstitution. Only after enactment of the Amendment Act did therespondent No. 1 – University make changes in its reservation policyand in compliance to the proviso of Section 3, inserted post amendment,Hthe University restored the earlier norms of reservation by reserving 2%

seats for SCs, 31% seats for STs and 17% seats for OBCs. Learnedcounsel for the respondent No. 7 concluded by submitting that theimpugned judgment projects the correction position and does not warrantany interference by this Court.

17. Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for therespondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 has also supported the findings returned inthe impugned judgment and submitted that in compliance to theAmendment Act, respondent No. 1 - University has rightly calculatedthe ratio of reservation of seats in admission to 31% for ST, 2% for SCand 17% for OBC candidates. He submitted that a plain reading of thelast part of clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 3 of the ParentAct, as amended vide Amendment Act makes it amply clear that in viewof the substantial tribal population in the State of Manipur and the otherStates mentioned in Section 2(ia) that defines “Specified north easternregion”, the ratio of reservation for SC and ST candidates prevailingimmediately before the enactment of the Reservation Act would not bereduced. At the same time, the said ratio of reservation would not becontrolled by the general rule of the ratio of reservation as providedunder Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. Learnedcounsel sought to urge that Amendment Act was necessitated only torectify the anomaly in Section 3 of the Reservation Act that provided ablanket reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates while overlookingthe fact that in the case of the State of Manipur, over 42% of the populationis tribal as against only 3.4% of the population that falls under the SCcategory. He sought to explain that the second proviso was inserted inSection 3 of the Parent Act to carve out an exception to the general ruleof reservation as provided in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 andthat respondent No. 1 - University is squarely covered under the saidproviso since there is no State seat reserved in the said University forpurposes of allocation which is the first requirement prescribed forapplication of the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Act.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 – theUGC has, however, subscribed to the arguments advanced by learnedcounsel for the appellants and submitted that reduction of the number ofseats reserved for SC candidates in the respondent No. 1 – Universityruns contrary to the mandate of the Reservation Act. It is his submissionthat the Amendment Act provides for reduction of reservation to theOBC category candidates to the extent that there need not be any A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Areservation at all for the said category only to ensure that there is noreduction in the overall seats reserved for the SC and ST candidates.Referring to the provisos incorporated in Section 3 of the Parent Act byvirtue of the amendments, learned counsel submitted that the requirementthat “the extent of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes shall not be reduced in respect of CentralBEducation Institutions in specified North Eastern Regions” appliesnot only to the situation contemplated in Clause (a) to the second provisoappended to Section 3 of the Parent Act, but also to Clause (b) to thesecond proviso. In other words, reservation made for SC and STcandidates should not be reduced to the extent below what was prevailingCbefore the Reservation Act, 2006 came into force or after the saidenactment thereby meaning that reservation for SC candidates couldnot 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 therespondent No. 1 – University violates the mandates of Section 3 of theParent Act.D19. We have perused the impugned judgment and given ourthoughtful consideration to the multifaceted arguments advanced bylearned counsel for the parties.

20. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 – University wasEoriginally established as a ‘State University’ in the year 1980 under theManipur University Act No. 8 of 1980. As a State University, respondentNo. 1 – University was following the Manipur Sate reservation policyby reserving 2% seats for SC candidates and 31% for ST candidates foradmission into various courses. On 13[th] October, 2005, the respondentFNo. 1 – University was converted into a ‘Central University’ under theManipur University Act No. 54 of 2005. After conversion too, respondentNo. 1 - University continued following the Manipur State ReservationPolicy, i.e., 2% for SC and 31% for ST for admission upto the academicsession 2008-2009. On 3[rd] January, 2007, the Reservation Act came intoforce. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 1 – University startedGfollowing the reservation policy as prescribed in Section 3 of theReservation Act i.e. 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs forthe academic session 2009-2010 onwards. A shift in reservation cameon amendment of the Reservation Act by virtue of the Amendment Actw.e.f. 19[th] June, 2012.

H

21. The necessity to amend the Reservation Act can be gleanedfrom a glance at the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to theCentral Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) AmendmentBill, 2010[6] which is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)Act, 2006 provides, inter alia, for the reservation in admission ofstudents belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribesand the Other Backward Classes of citizens to the extent of fifteenper cent., seven and one-half per cent. and twenty-seven percent. respectively to certain Central Educational Institutionsestablished, maintained or aided by the Central Government. Italso provides for mandatory increase of seats in such institutionsover a maximum period of three years from the academic sessioncommencing on and from the calendar year, 2007. Section 4 ofthe aforesaid Act further provides that the provisions of the Actare not applicable to certain Central Educational Institutionsincluding those established in the tribal areas referred to in theSixth Schedule to the Constitution.

2. It is noted that some of the Central EducationalInstitutions particularly those situated in the North-EasternStates including Sikkim (but excluding the non-tribal areasof Assam) inhabited significantly, and in some casespredominantly by tribal population and Babasaheb BhimraoAmbedkar University, Lucknow, which has been reservingfifty per cent. seats for the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes in keeping with the objects specified inthe Act establishing that University, have been showingtheir inability to reduce the extent of reservation of seatsfor the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribesprevailing therein, in order to give way for reservation oftwenty-seven per cent. of seats for the Other BackwardClasses as stipulated under the Act. Further, the existingprovisions of the Act exempt the Central EducationalInstitutions situated in the tribal areas referred to in theSixth Schedule to the Constitution from reservation for the A

BC

DE

F

G

AScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, if any, but thiswas not intended while enacting the aforesaid Act, exceptin case of Minority Educational Institutions which areexempt in terms of clause (5) of article 15 of theConstitution. Moreover, some of the Central EducationalInstitutions have been finding it difficult to adhere to theBtime-limit of three years for creation of the requisite physicaland academic infrastructure owing to various reasonsbeyond their control.

3. In order to remove the aforesaid practical difficulties beingfaced by the various Central Educational Institutions in giving effectCto the provisions of the Central Educational Institutions(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, it has become necessaryto amend certain provisions of the Act. It is also proposed to clarifythat implementation of the Act has, in fact, taken effect from thecalendar year 2008 and not from the year 2007 as specified inDsection 6 of the Act.

4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.”

22. The aforesaid Bill was placed before the ParliamentaryEStanding Committee on Human Resources Development[7], that submittedits 234[th] Report, which was tabled before both the Houses of theParliament on 26[th] February, 2011. The Standing Committee took noteof the Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending the ReservationAct as reproduced hereinabove and also noticed the practical difficultiesfaced by some of the CEIs in implementing the provisions of theFReservation Act as expressed by the Department of Higher Education.The clarifications given by the Department of Higher Education forproposing amendment to Section 3 of the Parent Act have beensummarized in paras 3.4 and 3.5 of the Report as below: - “3.4 The Committee takes note of the following clarificationGgiven by the Department for bringing the proposed amendmentsin 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 H7 For short ‘ the Standing Committee’

Constitution shall be governed by the reservation policy of theconcerned 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 theSCs exceed 15 per cent or the seats reserved for the STs exceed7 .5 per cent or the seats reserved for the SCs and the STs takentogether in a CEI exceed 22.5 per cent but fall short of 50 percent of the annual permitted strength, the percentage of seatsreserved for the OBCs shall be restricted to such shortfall.

(iii) In a CEI with no State Seats, if the seats reserved for SCsor the STS or both taken together in a CEI exceed 50 per cent ofthe annual permitted strength, that CEI shall be exempt frommaking any reservation for the OBCs. Further, if such a CEI issituated in the north-eastern States, including Sikkim but excludingthe non-tribal areas of Assam, the percentage of seats reservedfor the SCs or the STs shall not be reduced from the level obtainingon the date immediately preceding the date of the commencementof the Act; while in case of a CEI situated in other areas thepercentage of seats reserved for the SCs and STs in that CEIshall stand reduced to 50 per cent.

3.5 While the Committee is convinced with the proposedamendment in Section 3, it would like to point out that thereare conceptual difficulties in determining the 13 OBCreservation in the States. While the SC/ST reservation maybe definite, it is the OBC reservation which may differ fromState to State. The Committee is also aware of the fact thatreconciliation has to be made between 50 per cent cap onreservation and 27 per cent OBC quota. The Committee isof the view that OBC percentage is to be decided by takingSC and ST reservation as a compulsory component. Sincethe extent of reservation is 50 per cent whatever remainingafter fulfilling the SC/ST reservation may go to OBCs.”

23. The reasons for omitting Clause (a) of Section 4, whichexempted application of Section 3 of the Parent Act to a CEI establishedin tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, wasdiscussed in paras and 3.8 of the Report in the following manner: - A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

“3.7 This clause seeks to omit clause (a) of section 4, therebywithdrawing the exemption erroneously given to the CEIsestablished in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule tothe Constitution from implementing the reservation policy for SCsand STs, if any, in force immediately preceding the date of thecoming into force of the principal Act.

A

B

3.8 On a specific query about the factors necessitating theproposed amendment, the Committee was informed that as perthe existing provision, reservation policy for SCs, STs and OBCscould not be considered to be applicable to CEIs established inthe tribal areas. While the intention of the Government was toCexempt such CEIs from implementing 27 per cent reservationintroduced for the OBCs only, these institutions were inadvertentlyexempted 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, theDCommittee accepts the proposed amendment so as toremove any ambiguity with regard to specific groundrealities governing the CEls established in the SixthSchedule States.”

24. It is noteworthy that the Division Bench of the High Court ofEMeghalaya did discuss the 234[th] Report at page 24 of the judgment dated20[th] April, 2017, in the context of the reasons offered by the learnedSingle Judge in the earlier judgment dated 1[st] September, 2015 whereinit was held that by an inference drawn from the said Report, one coulddetermine the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates forFpurposes of applying the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of theParent Act post- amendment, but the appellate court was not persuadedby the said logic.

25. It is no longer res integra that Reports and recommendationsmade by the Parliamentary Committees/Commissions that precedeGenactment of a Statute can be used as external aids to interpret themeaning of ambiguous words in a statutory provision wherever considerednecessary. It can also be taken note of as to the existence of a historicalfact. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that such Reports arenot decisive and a Court is free to arrive at a different conclusion basedon its own findings and other evidence produced by the parties. [ReferH

State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap8,R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay9andKalpana Mehta and Others. v. Union of India and Others10]. Forour purpose, we do not intend to take notice of the said Report with anidea of determining the extent of reservation for SC and ST candidatesin the light of the amendment by way of insertion to Section 3 of theParent Act. However, the said Report can be treated as a useful tool tofathom the background in which the Amendment Act was introducedand throw light on what had weighed with the legislating authorities inproposing the amendments to the Reservation Act.

26. It can be discerned from the Statement of Objects and Reasonsappended to the Amendment Bill, the background notes submitted to theStanding Committee by the Department of Higher Education and the234[th] Report tabled by the Standing Committee in the Parliament thatsome of the CEIs, in particular those situated in North Eastern Stateshaving a pre- dominant tribal population, expressed their inability to reducethe extent of reservation of seats for SCs and STs for ensuring reservationof 27% of the seats for the OBC category, as stipulated in the ReservationAct. It can also be seen that the provisions of the Reservation Act asthey stood, exempted CEIs situated in tribal areas referred to in theSixth Schedule to the Constitution, from making any reservation for SCsand STs, which as a matter of fact, was not the object behind introducingthe enactment. Recognising the fact that the composition of the populationin the North Eastern States ought to be given precedence, the StandingCommittee stated in its Report that while the extent of reservation ofseats for SCs/STs may be definite, OBC reservation may differ fromState to State. It was with the idea of reconciliating 50% cap onreservation for SCs/STs and 27% for the OBC quota, that the AmendmentBill was introduced primarily to remove the existing ambiguities and toovercome the difficulties that were being faced by the CEIs establishedin the Sixth Schedule States, to accommodate the aspirations of a largetribal population in that region.

27. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellantscannot be heard to state that the amendments brought about in theReservation Act by legislating the Amendment Act were only directedtowards tribal States covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution 8 (1974) 3 SCC 3379 (1984) 2 SCC 18310 (2018) 7 SCC 1

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand cannot be made applicable to the State of Manipur, even though thedefinition of the expression “Specified north eastern region” introducedby virtue of the amended Section 2(ia) encompasses the State of Manipur.Nor is this Court persuaded by the submission made on behalf of theappellants that the second proviso was inserted in Section 3 only tomake sure that the percentage of reservation provided for in Section 3(i)Band (ii) of the Parent Act would remain untouched. Accepting such asubmission would tantamount to negating the very aim and object of theAmendment Act, which was enacted only to resolve the difficulties thatwere being faced by the CEIs in implementing the Reservation Act whenit came to the North Eastern States, including the State of Manipur. TheCtwo provisos inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act are nothing but arecognition of the demography of the North Eastern States covered underthe umbrella of “Specified north eastern region” which have asubstantial tribal population.

28. It is in the light of the aforesaid factors that it has been held inDthe impugned judgment that the respondent No. 1 – University wascorrect in calculating the extent of reservation of seats in makingadmissions to different courses, viz., 31% for ST candidates, 2% for SCcandidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in line with the mandateof the Amendment Act. The aforesaid understanding of the respondentNo. 1 – University is also reflected from the affidavit filed by it inEopposition to the writ petition filed by the appellants, in particular, paras5 and 9 thereof, which are extracted below for ready reference :

“5.That, in reply to the contents of the paragraph No. 4of the writ petition under reply, it is submitted that inview of the provisions of the Central EducationalFInstitutions (Reservation in Admission) AmendmentAct, 2012 reservation of seats in respect of reservedcategories, 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 beGrecalculated in accordance with the said AmendmentAct, and it was the same percentage of reservationprevalent in the University prior to thecommencement of the Principal Act i.e. the CentralEducational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)Act, 2006. The distribution of seats/break-up for SC/ST/H

OBC/UR based on the said proportion for reservation wasintimated to the Secretary to His Excellency the Governorof Manipur vide the letter dated 23- 07-2014, after obtainingthe approval/concurrence of the Heads i and Deans of allsubjects of the Manipur University.

XXXXXXXXX

9. That, in reply to the contents of para No. 1O of thewrit petition under-reply, it is submitted, as stated inthe foregoing paragraphs that the Central Educational‘Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act; 2006has been adopted by the Manipur University from theAcademic Session 2009-2010 by providing the quotaof seats to the candidates belonging to the reservedcategories in accordance with the said Act. It is tostate that after the enactment of the Amendment Act,2012 the provision of Ordinance 5.2 ceased to existand the provision of the Act is to be implemented/acted upon, as per the law.”

29. It can be understood from the aforesaid averments made inthe affidavit that on the date immediately preceding the date ofcommencement of the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 –University had been reserving 2% seats for SC and 31% for STcandidates for purposes of admission. It has been strenuously argued bylearned counsel for the appellants that the meaning ascribed to the words“date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the 2006Act”, used in Clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 3 should betaken to mean the date just before enactment of the Amendment Act,i.e., a roll back to the situation as was prevalent when the ReservationAct had come into force viz. 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% forOBC candidates. In our opinion, any such interpretation would strike atthe root of the Amendment Act which was legislated with the sole objectof overcoming the ambiguities that had come to the fore on working outthe warp and woof of the Reservation Act, namely, the inability to meetthe aspirations of a large number of ST candidates looking for opportunitiesto gain entry in CEIs located in the areas subsequently defined as the“Specified north eastern region” in the Amendment Act.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A30. Once the two provisos were inserted in Section 3 of the ParentAct by virtue of the Amendment Act, the general norms of reservationas laid down in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Acthad to be restricted in terms of the said provisos. While the first provisodeals with “State seats”, if any, in a CEI situated in tribal areas referredto in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the second proviso addressesBa situation where there are no State seats in a CEI and the seats reservedfor 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 SCand ST candidates exceeds the sum total of the percentage as specifiedCunder Clauses (i) and (ii). Two riders have also been dovetailed in thesecond proviso to Section 3, namely Clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a) ofthe second proviso, contemplates a situation where seats referred to inthe second proviso are less than 50% of the annual permitted strengthon the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of theAmendment Act. Clause (b) provides for a situation where such seatsDare over 50% of the annual permitted strength on the date immediatelypreceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. In asituation contemplated in Clause (a) of the second proviso, a restrictionhas been imposed on the total percentage of seats required to be reservedfor OBC candidates under Section 3(iii) of the Parent Act by limitingEthem to the balance seats available after factoring in the combinedpercentage of seats specified in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of theParent Act, falling short of 50% of the annual permitted strength. But incircumstances contemplated in Clause (b), the Act recognizes the factthat 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 conditionFthat the extent of reservation of seats for SC and ST candidates shallnot be reduced when it comes to CEIs established in “Specified northeastern region”. This goes to demonstrate that the underlying intent ofthe Amendment Act was to secure a particular percentage of seatsthrough reservation for a set of candidates and leave some space forGcapping of seats for OBC candidates, depending on the circumstancescontemplated in Clauses (a) and (b) of the second proviso to the amendedSection 3.

31. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 – University hasclarified in its affidavit that prior to commencement of the ReservationHAct, the prevalent percentage of reservation for ST and SC candidates was 31% and 2% respectively. Nothing to the contrary has been broughtforth by the appellant. That being the position, we are in completeagreement with the findings returned in the impugned judgment that therespondent No. 1 – University was right in reverting back to the positionobtaining immediately before the commencement of the ReservationAct by reserving seats in respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, peggedat 31%, 2% and 17% respectively which was in consonance with theManipur State Reservation Policy.

32. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellantsthat the respondent No. 1 – University was under a mandate to followthe norms provided under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the ParentAct while giving a complete go by to the provisos inserted in the saidprovision by virtue of the Amendment Act which, as per the learnedcounsel, could be applied only to determine the percentage of seatsrequired to be reserved for OBC candidates, is devoid of merits andturned down. To our mind, the learned Single Judge is perfectly right inmaking the observation that the formulae for fixing the percentage ofreservation for the SC and ST candidates and for determining thepercentage of seats to be reserved for OBC candidates under the secondproviso of Section 3, ought to be gathered from the same source andany other interpretation would lead to uncertainty.

33. To put it differently, the reference point of the period fordetermining the reservation quota for OBC candidates must be the sameas that of the SC and ST candidates for the simple reason that for workingout the reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessarily requireone to find out in the first instance, as to what would be the differencebetween 50% of the annual permitted strength and the combined existingpercentage for the SC and ST candidates, as obtained on the dateimmediately preceding the date of commencement of the ReservationAct. Both the issues are so interlaced that to determine the percentageof reservation for OBC candidates, one would have to undertake anexercise of determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for SCand ST candidates, all within the four corners of the second provisoinserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act. Any other interpretation soughtto be assigned to the second proviso to Section 3 inserted post-amendment, would make the proviso itself unworkable and redundantand is, therefore, impermissible. Thus, we make it clear that the generalrules of reservation have been encapsulated in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof Section 3 of the Parent Act. But when it comes to CEIs established inStates falling under the definition of “Specified north eastern region”,categorized in Section 2(ia) introduced by the Amendment Act, the twonew provisos appended to Section 3 would govern the norms ofreservation which prescribes a different criteria, vis-à-vis the mainprovision and would apply irrespective of whether they are situated inBareas covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not.

34. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal fails and theimpugned judgment is upheld. We endorse the view taken by the learnedSingle Judge that after amendment of the Reservation Act, the respondentNo. 1 – University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SCCcandidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates whichis in consonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the ReservationAct inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act.

35. The appeal is accordingly dismissed while leaving the partiesto bear their own costs.D

Devika Gujral

Appeal dismissed.

E

F

G

H