THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER versus ANSHIKA GOYAL AND OTHERS on 25 January 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 26.07.2019 and 08.08.2019 passed by the HighCourt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.17248/2019 andCWP No. 18989 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petitions and has directed the State to issue a fresh notificationproviding for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terroristaffected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab and furtherdirected that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management quotaseats as well and further directed that the fresh notification shall alsoprovide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges,the State of Punjab has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:

The State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Private Health SciencesEducational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee andmaking of Reservation) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006Act’) for the regulation of admission, fixation of fee and making ofreservation in Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions in theState of Punjab. Section 6 of the 2006 Act provides for reservation ofseats and as per the said Section, all private health sciences educationalinstitutions shall reserve seats for admission in open merit category andmanagement category, for advancement of socially and educationallybackward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or ScheduledTribes to such extent, as may be notified by the State Government in theofficial gazette from time to time.

2.1 The State of Punjab framed its Sports Policy in the year 2018which provided that 3% reservation in admissions will be provided forgraded sports persons. Clause 10 of the said policy also provided thatthe said Sports Policy shall prevail on all the Departments and A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

AOrganizations of Government of Punjab, however, if any other departmentwishes to have specific policy, it will be finalised in consultation with theDepartment of Sports. It appears that by order dated 25.07.2019, aconscious decision was taken by the Government of Punjab to provide1% reservation for sports persons. The said order was passed takinginto consideration Clause 10 of the Sporty Policy, 2018.B

2.2 For the academic year 2018-19, the State Government issuednotification dated 6.2.2018 for admission in Medical/Dental Colleges.Clause 16 of the said notification provided for reservation in GovernmentMedical/Dental Colleges and Clause 17 provided for admission to privateinstitutes. However, it appears that though 1% seats were reserved forCsports persons and the children/grand children of terrorist affected personsso far as the State quota seats in Government Institutions are concerned,similar reservation was not provided for admission to private instituteseven with respect to government quota seats in the private institutes.

2.3 A bunch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court forDquashing Clause 17 of notification dated 6.2.2018 to the extent of notproviding the reservation for sports persons and children/grand childrenof terrorist affected persons in the private institutes which as such wereprovided for the State quota seats in government institutions.

2.4 By judgment and order dated 23.08.2018, the High CourtEallowed the said writ petitions partially and declared that reservationthat is applicable to Government institutes shall extend to the privateinstitutes as well. The judgment and order passed by the High Court inthe case of Bani Suri and others was challenged before this Court byway of a special leave petition (civil) no.28491/2018 and this Court videForder dated 12.11.2018 dismissed the said special leave petition byspecifically observing that the order passed by the High Court shall notbe treated as a precedent in any other case.

2.5 Subsequently, for the academic year 2019-20, the StateGovernment issued a notification dated 6.6.2019, which subsequentlyGcame to be modified vide corrigendum dated 11.07.2019. Clauses 15 &16 provided for reservation in Government Medical/Dental Colleges aswell as admission to private institutes respectively. Clause 15 providedfor 1% reservation for sports persons; 1% reservation for children/grandchildren of terrorist affected persons and 1% reservation for children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons in the State quota seats inH

government institutions. Clause 16 provided for 1% reservation for sportspersons, children/grand children of terrorist affected persons, children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons and 1% for wards of defencepersonnel so far as the State quota seats in private institutions areconcerned. However, no such reservation was provided for themanagement quota seats.

2.6 A bunch of writ petitions came to be filed before the HighCourt for the academic year 2019-20 challenging the notification for (i)not providing reservation for sports persons, children/grand children ofterrorist affected persons and children/grand children of Sikh riot affectedpersons insofar as the management quota seats in private institutes areconcerned; and (ii) for providing 1% reservation for sports persons insofaras the government Medical/Dental Colleges as well as the privateinstitutes, instead of 3% reservation for sports persons. By the impugnedjudgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petitionsand issued the following directions:

(a) The State is directed to issue a fresh notification providing for1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terroristaffected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private unaidednon-minority Medical/Dental Institutions in the State of Punjab.This reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats aswell.

(b) The notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% inGovernment Medical/Dental Colleges.

(c) While determining inter se merit of candidates possessing thesame sports gradation, only the NEET score shall be considered.

(d) Implementation of the 10% quota for economically weakersections and the calculation thereof by the State of Punjab is upheld.

2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court in issuing the aforesaiddirections, more particularly directing the State to issue a fresh notificationproviding for reservation/quota for sports persons, children/grand childrenof terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all privateunaided non-minority Medical/Dental Institutions in the State and directingto provide for a sports quota of 3% (instead of 1% as fixed by the StateGovernment) in Government Medical/Dental Colleges, the State haspreferred the present appeals.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocateappearing for the State of Punjab and Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners.

3.1 Number of submissions have been made by Ms. MeenakshiArora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State on theBHigh Court issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide forreservation/quota for sports persons, children/grand children of terroristaffected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State.

3.2 It is vehemently submitted that no writ of mandamus can beCissued by the High Court directing the State to provide for reservationfor the particular class or category and it should be left to the wisdom ofthe State Government. It is also the case on behalf of the State thatArticle 15(5) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision and it isultimately for the State to provide for reservation for a particular class/category and no State can be compelled and/or no writ of mandamusDcan be issued directing the State to provide for reservation for a particularclass or category. In support of her submission, learned senior counselhas heavily relied upon the following decisions of this Court:

(i) Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana andothers, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 477 (para 27);E(ii) Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of Indiaand others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees WelfareAssociation and others, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 308 (para26); F(iii) Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh andothers, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 113 (para 49); and

(iv) Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand andothers, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 1 (paras 18 & 19)

3.3 Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing onGbehalf of the State of Punjab has further submitted that even a writ ofmandamus issued by the High Court directing the State to provide 3%reservation/quota for sports persons is also unsustainable. It is submittedthat a conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government toprovide only 1% reservation/quota for sports persons. It is submittedthat it is ultimately for the State Government considering the facts situationH

in the State to provide the reservation/quota and what percentage ofreservation/quota should be there should be left to the concerned StateGovernment. In support of her above submission, she has also reliedupon the aforesaid decisions.

4. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the original writ petitioners has submitted that the notification underchallenge before the High Court was for academic year 2019-20 andpursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, admissions have beengiven implementing the impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court, except providing reservation to the extent of 3% for sportspersons.

4.1 It is further submitted that thereafter a fresh notification hasbeen issued for the academic year 2021-22 in which the State has providedthe reservation for sports persons, children/grand children of terroristaffected persons and Sikh riot affected persons to an extent of 1% eachwith respect to the private institutes also. It is therefore submitted thatas such the issue in the present case has become academic. Therefore,it is prayed to dispose of the appeals by keeping the question of lawopen.

4.2 Now so far as the direction issued by the High Court directingthe State to provide 3% reservation/quota for sports persons inGovernment Medical/Dental Colleges is concerned, Mr. Patwalia, learnedSenior Counsel has tried to support the same by submitting that whenSports Policy, 2018 provided for 3% reservation for sports persons inadmissions in all government and private higher educational institutionsand universities including those of medical and technical education, locatedin the State of Punjab, there was no reason for the State to deviate fromthe same and provide for only 1% reservation/quota for sports persons.It is therefore submitted that the High Court has rightly directed to provide3% reservation /quota for sports persons considering the Sports Policy,2018.

5. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the respectiveparties at length.

By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has directedto provide for reservation/quota to sports persons, children/grand childrenof terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons for admissions in A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe private institutes and more particularly the management quota in theprivate institutes. The High Court has also further directed to providefor 3% reservation/quota for sports persons in all Government Medical/Dental Colleges.

6. Now so far as the directions issued by the High Court directingBto provide for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terroristaffected persons/Sikh riot affected persons and sports persons in allprivate unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State isconcerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the said issue hasbecome academic, firstly on the ground that the issue before the HighCourt and even before this Court was/is for the academic year 2019-20.CPursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, admissions for theacademic year 2019-20 are already given as per the judgment of theHigh Court except providing 3% reservation/quota for sports personsand applying 1% reservation. This Court, vide order dated 27.08.2019,passed the following interim order:D“Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General appearingon behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learnedsenior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. Issue freshnotice to the unrepresented/unserved respondents. After hearingthe matters at some length, we deem it appropriate to have finalEhearing in the matter as main question arises with regard to validityof classification made as to Government seats and institutionsseats for the purpose of reservation in question. Fact remainsother reservations have been applied to all seats in privateinstitutions. However, after hearing the learned counsel for theparties and considering the decisions in “T.M.A.Pai FoundationF& Ors. Versus State of Karnataka & Ors.”, (2002)8 SCC 481and “Gulshan Prakash (DR.) & Ors. Versus State of Haryana &Ors.”, (2010) 1 SCC 477, without expressing any opinion on merits,we are of the view that there shall not be a blanket stay on theorder passed by the High Court. However, the High Court hasGenhanced the sports quota from 1% to 3%. That cannot be said tobe appropriate as the Government has notified only 1% sportsquota on horizontal business. The part of the impugned order withrespect to enhancing quota from 1% to 3% shall remain stayed tillthe final decision by this Court. With respect to remaining partthere shall be no stay. 3 Counseling to take place by 7th September,H

2019. Only 1% reservation be implemented with respect to sportsquota. Counseling be held as per order passed by the High Courtwith other aspects.”

6.1 Secondly, the State has now already provided the reservation/quota for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist affectedpersons/Sikh riot affected persons even with respect to admissions inthe private institutes for the academic year 2021-22. Therefore, the firstissue, whether the High Court was right in issuing directions directingthe State to issue a fresh notification providing for 1% reservation/quotafor children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affectedpersons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions inthe State of Punjab including the management quota seats has becomeacademic and therefore we dispose of the present appeals keeping thequestion of law open. As the admissions are given for the academicyear 2019-20 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, wedirect that the said admission shall not be disturbed/affected. However,it is observed that we have not entered into and/or considered any otherdispute including whether the admissions are made on the basis of meritor not. If anybody has any individual grievance, in that case, it will beopen for the aggrieved person to take recourse to law.

7. Now so far as the directions issued by the High Court directingthe State to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sports persons, insteadof 1% provided by the State is concerned, it appears from the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court that it has issued the saiddirection considering the Sports Policy, 2018. It is true that as per clause8.11(v), 3% reservation for sports persons has been provided. However,it is to be noted that clause 10 permits/allows any other department tohave specific policy providing for reservation for sports persons otherthan 3%. As observed hereinabove, thereafter the State Governmenthas issued an order dated 25.07.2019 providing for 1% reservation/quotafor sports persons. The said order has been issued and 1% reservation/quota for sports persons is provided after taking into consideration theSports Policy, 2018. Therefore, a conscious policy decision has beentaken by the State Government to provide for only 1% reservation/quotafor sports persons. Therefore, the question posed for the considerationof this Court is, whether the State Government’s action taking a policydecision to prescribe a particular percentage of reservation/quota for aparticular category of persons, can be interfered with by issuance of a AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awrit of mandamus, directing the State Government to provide for aparticular percentage of reservation for a particular category of personsother than what has been provided in the policy decision taken by theState Government.

8. While answering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of this CourtBreferred to hereinabove are required to be discussed.

a) In the case of Gulshan Prakash (supra), it was observed bythis Court that there cannot be any mandamus by the Court to providefor a reservation for a particular community. In the case before thisCourt, the State of Haryana did not provide any reservation for SC/ST/Cbackward community at the postgraduate level. A conscious decisionwas taken by the State of Haryana not to provide for reservation at thepostgraduate level. The same was challenged and to that this Court hasobserved that there cannot be any mandamus by the Court as claimed.In the aforesaid decision, it was further observed and held that Article15(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision and the State GovernmentDis the best Judge to grant reservation for SC/ST/backward categories atpostgraduate level. Any policy and the decision of the State not to makeany provision for reservation at postgraduate level suffers from noinfirmity. It was further observed that every State can take its owndecision with regard to reservation depending on various factors. At thisEstage, it is to be noted that it was also submitted before this Court thatsince the Government has decided to grant reservation for SC/ST/backward class communities in admission at MBBS level, i.e.,undergraduate level and therefore the State has to provide for reservationat postgraduate level also. To that, this Court observed that since theGovernment had decided to grant reservation for SC/ST/backwardFcategories in admission at MBBS level, i.e., undergraduate level, it doesnot mean that it is bound to grant reservation at the postgraduate levelalso.

b) In the case of Central Bank of India SC/ST EmployeesWelfare Association and others (supra), while considering the issueGof providing reservation in favour of SC/ST category persons in thepromotion and when Articles 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India werepressed into service, this Court observed and held that though Articles15 & 16 empower the State to take an affirmative action in favour of theSC/ST category persons by making reservations for them in theHemployment of the Union or the State, they are only enabling provisions which permit the State to make provision for reservation of these categoryof persons. It was further observed that insofar as making of provisionsfor reservation in matters of promotion to any class/classes of post isconcerned, such a provision can be made in favour of SC/ST categoryemployees if in the opinion of the State they are not adequatelyrepresented in services under the State. It is observed that thereforepower lies with the State to make a provision but, at the same time,Courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily makesuch a provision. In paragraph 26, it was observed and held as under:

“26. In the first instance, we make it clear that there is no disputeabout the constitutional position envisaged in Articles 15 and 16,insofar as these provisions empower the State to take affirmativeaction in favour of SC/ST category persons by making reservationsfor them in the employment in the Union or the State (or for thatmatter, public sector/authorities which are treated as State underArticle 12 of the Constitution). The laudable objective underlyingthese provisions is also to be kept in mind while undertaking anyexercise pertaining to the issues touching upon the reservation ofsuch SC/ST employees. Further, such a reservation can not onlybe made at the entry level but is permissible in the matters ofpromotions as well. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mindthat clauses (4) and (4-A) of Article 16 of the Constitution areonly the enabling provisions which permit the State to makeprovision for reservation of these category of persons. Insofar asmaking of provisions for reservation in matters of promotion toany class or classes of post is concerned, such a provision can bemade in favour of SC/ST category employees if, in the opinion ofthe State, they are not adequately represented in services underthe State. Thus, no doubt, power lies with the State to make aprovision, but, at the same time, courts cannot issue any mandamusto the State to necessarily make such a provision. It is for theState to act, in a given situation, and to take such an affirmativeaction. Of course, whenever there exists such a provision forreservation in the matters of recruitment or the promotion, it wouldbestow an enforceable right in favour of persons belonging to SC/ST category and on failure on the part of any authority to reservethe posts, while making selections/promotions, the beneficiariesof these provisions can approach the Court to get their rightsenforced. What is to be highlighted is that existence of provision AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

88SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Afor reservation in the matter of selection or promotion, as thecase may be, is the sine qua non for seeking mandamus as it isonly when such a provision is made by the State, a right shallaccrue in favour of SC/ST candidates and not otherwise.”

c) In the case of Suresh Chand Gautam (supra), writ petitionsBwere preferred before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia for issuance of a direction in the nature of a mandamus commandingthe State/States to enforce appropriately the constitutional mandate ascontained under the provisions of Article 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 ofthe Constitution , or in the alternative, directing the respondents toconstitute a committee or appoint a commission chaired either by a retiredCJudge of the High Court or Supreme Court in making survey and collectingnecessary qualitative data of the Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes in the services of the State for granting reservation in promotionin the light of direction given by this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union ofIndia, (2006) 8 SCC 212. Refusing to grant such reliefs in exercise ofDpowers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and after referringto the decision of this Court in the case of Census Commr. Vs. R.Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796, this Court has observed that nowrit of mandamus of such a nature can be issued. While refusing toissue a writ of mandamus of such a nature, in paragraph 49, it wasobserved and held as under:E

“49. Recently in Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy [CensusCommr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC(L&S) 589] a three-Judge Bench while dealing with thecorrectness of the judgment of the High Court wherein the HighCourt had directed that the Census Department of the GovernmentFof India shall take such measures towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country at the earliest and in a time-boundmanner, so as to achieve the goal of social justice in its true sense,which is the need of the hour, the court analysing the contextopined thus: (SCC p. 806, para 25)

G

G

“25. Interference with the policy decision and issue of amandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner areabsolutely different. The Act has conferred power on theCentral Government to issue notification regarding the mannerin which the census has to be carried out and the CentralHGovernment has issued notifications, and the competent authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain ofthe court to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and, insuch interpretation, certain creative process is involved. Thecourts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional.That too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up thegaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutionalsilence or abeyance. But the courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to the policy by way of issuing awrit of mandamus.”

We have referred to the said authority in Census Commr.case [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 :(2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589] as the Court has clearly held that itneither legislates nor does it issue a mandamus to legislate. Therelief in the present case, when appositely appreciated, tantamountsto a prayer for issue of a mandamus to take a step towards framingof a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in matter ofpromotions. In our considered opinion, a writ of mandamus ofsuch a nature cannot be issued.”

d) In the recent decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar andanother (supra), again it is reiterated by this Court that no mandamuscan be issued by the Court directing the State Government to providefor reservation. It was further observed that even no writ of mandamuscan be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justifytheir action not to provide for reservation. It was observed that even ifthe under-representation of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes inpublic services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus canbe issued by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation.While holding so, in paragraph 18, it was observed and held as under:

“18. The direction that was issued to the State Government tocollect quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or inadequacyof representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes in government services is the subject-matter ofchallenge in some appeals before us. In view of the law laid downby this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is notbound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right whichinheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. Nomandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear fromthe judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhneyv. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S)Supp 1] , Ajit Singh (2) [Ajit Singh (2) v. State of Punjab, (1999)7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1239] , M. Nagaraj [M. Nagarajv. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S)1013] and Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi NarainGupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] that Articles16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection ofquantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation ofScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sinequa non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to becollected by the State Government is only to justify reservation tobe made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts,according to Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution. Assuch, collection of data regarding the inadequate representationof members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, asnoted above, is a prerequisite for providing reservations, and isnot required when the State Government decided not to providereservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions,the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis ofquantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representationof members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes inState services. Even if the under-representation of ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to thenotice of this Court, no mandamus can be issued by this Court tothe State Government to provide reservation in light of the lawlaid down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran [C.A.Rajendran v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721 : AIR 1968 SC507] and Suresh Chand Gautam [Suresh Chand Gautam v.State of U.P., (2016) 11 SCC 113 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 291] .Therefore, the direction given by the High Court that the StateGovernment should first collect data regarding the adequacy orinadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes in government services on the basis of which the StateGovernment should take a decision whether or not to providereservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by thisCourt and is accordingly set aside. Yet another direction given by the High Court in its judgment dated 15-7-2019 [VinodKumar v. State of Uttarakhand, WP (S/B) No. 291 of 2019,decided on 15-7-2019 (Utt)] , directing that all future vacanciesthat are to be filled up by promotion in the posts of AssistantEngineer, should only be from the members of Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes, is wholly unjustifiable and is hence set aside.”

9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that theHigh Court has committed a grave error in issuing a writ of mandamusand directing the State Government to provide for 3% reservation/quotafor sports persons, instead of 1% as provided by the State Government.A conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to providefor 1% reservation/quota for sports persons. A specific order dated25.07.2019 was also issued by the State Government. Therefore, theHigh Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of mandamusdirecting the State to provide a particular percentage of reservation forsports persons, namely, in the present case, 3% reservation instead of1% provided by the State Government, while exercising powers underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court insofar as directing theState to provide for 3% reservation for sports persons and/or providefor a sports quota of 3% in the Government Medical/Dental Colleges isunsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thefirst direction issued by the High Court directing the State to issue afresh notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grandchildren of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in allprivate unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State ofPunjab is concerned, the present appeals are disposed of as the saidissue has become academic for the reasons stated hereinabove, However,the question of law, whether such a direction/writ of mandamus couldhave been issued is kept open.

10.1 So far as the second direction issued by the High Courtdirecting to provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges in the State of Punjab is concerned, the same is herebyquashed and set aside by observing that no writ of mandamus couldhave been issued by the High Court.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 8 S.C.R.

A10.2 All impleadment/intervention applications stand disposed ofin terms of the aforesaid judgment and order. However, if any individualperson has a grievance, he/she may take recourse to law for his/hergrievance.

11. The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.BHowever, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.

C

Devika Gujral

(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H