ORDER :

Writ Petition (C) No. 259 of 1994:

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that, in view of the subsequent events, this writ petition has become infructuous, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

2. This writ petition, basically, has become infructuous because the petitioners have since retired. However, this Order of dismissal of the writ petition would not result in denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioners herein.

Writ Petition (C) Nos. 454/1994, 473/1994, 238/1995 and 35/1996:

3. The short question which arises for determination in these writ petitions is, whether the quantum of reservation provided for in Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments to the Posts in the Services under the State] Act, 1993, is valid? The impugned Act received the Presidential assent on 19th July, 1994.

4. Subsequent to the filing of the above writ petitions, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution have been amended vide Constitution [Ninety-third Amendment] Act, 2005, and Constitution [Eighty-first Amendment] Act, 2000, respectively, which Amendment Acts have been the subject- matter of subsequent decisions of this Court in the cases of M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 2006 (8) SCC 212 and Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India and Others, 2008 (6) SCC 1, in which, inter-alia, it has been laid down that if a State wants to exceed fifty per cent reservation, then it is required to base it's decision on the quantifiable data. In the present case, this exercise has not been done.

5. Therefore, keeping in mind the said parameter, we direct the State to place the quantifiable data before the Tamil Nadu State Backward Classes Commission and, on the basis of such quantifiable data amongst other things, the Commission will decide the quantum of reservation. We are informed by learned Solicitor General that such data in the form of Reports, which are subsequently prepared, is already available.

6. Consequently, these writ petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the State Government to re-visit and take appropriate decision in the light of what is stated above. It needs to be mentioned that the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time in relation to admissions to Educational Institutions shall continue to be in force and in operation for a period of one year from today.

7. In the circumstances, we are not expressing any opinion on the validity of 1993 Act at this stage. The Registry is directed to send the records and proceedings, if any, connected to these writ petitions back to the State.

Writ Petition (C) No. 471 of 1994:

8. By this writ petition, Government Order dated 25th July, 1994, passed by the State of Karnataka, is sought to be challenged only to the extent that it provides for reservation in excess of fifty per cent, both in the matter of Admission to Educational Institutions and in the matter of Recruitment to Service.

9. On 9th September, 1994, the present writ petition had come up for directions along with I.A. No. 4 in Writ Petition (C) No. 438 of 1994. In this case, we are concerned only with Writ Petition (C) No. 471 of 1994. On the said date, this Court passed the Order in the following terms:

“The State Government shall be at liberty to make reservations in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney Case 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217.”

It was also made clear that the State Government can make reservations upto fifty percent, inclusive of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.

10. We may state that, subsequent to the filing of this writ petition in 1994, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution have been amended vide Constitution [Ninety-third Amendment] Act, 2005, and Constitution [Eighty-first Amendment] Act, 2000, respectively. Moreover, subsequent decisions in the cases of M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 2006 (8) SCC 212 and Ashoka Kumar Thakur v