ORDER :

1. On 11th September, 1990, we directed the final hearing of this group of cases to be taken up on 6th November, 1990, in view of the importance and urgency of the matter: No interim order was then made on the stay petitions in view of certain submissions made by learned Attorney General in Court but we left it open to the petitioners who had asked for stay orders to move their applications if and when there was any imminent need for it.

2. Yesterday, Mr. Venugopal, on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association and some of the counsel whose petitions for stay are pending consideration when moved, mentioned to the Court that a situation imminent enough had arisen which justified consideration of the stay petitions. Therefore, the Bench which was handling with this matter assembled this morning to hear the stay petitions.

3. We have heard Mr. Venugopal, Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Mrs. Hingorani, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Kalra, Mr. Singhvi and Mrs. Indra Sawhney, in support of the petitions for stay. Similarly on the other side we have heard learned Attorney General, Mr. A. Subba Rao and Mr. Havanur, in support of their stand that no interim order should be made.

4. The main factor which has led to the pressing of the applications for interim orders is based upon a notification of the Union Public Service Commission in regard to the combined Medical Services Examination of 1991 wherein the last date for making of applications is October 29, 1990. In the body of the notice there is reference to what can be correlated to implementing the impugned Government Notification with regard to the reservation of 27% of vacancies for the category covered by the Government Order. Learned Attorney General has not challenged this aspect factually. An affidavit has been filed before us on behalf of the Union Public Service Commission explaining the prevailing practice as also with reference to the notification in question. It explains the time-frame set by the Commission for the different aspects of the particular recruitment. There is absolutely no dispute that everyone duly qualified is free to make an application. The question as to whether the benefit of 27% reservation in terms of the Government Order of August 13, 1990, would be applicable is one which will arise for consideration sometime after February, 1991, when the qualifying , examination is scheduled.

5. As everyone qualified to apply irrespective of reservation is free to apply no interim Order with reference to this notification is necessary at present except a clarification that if anything is done which would appear to be contrary to the decision ultimately to be delivered by this Court, the same shall be set right and the recruitment may even be redone from the stage where-alleged undue reservation materially affected the process.

6. Learned Attorney General then stated that identification of the categories to be benefited by the 27% reservation is in progress and .may not be complete by the end of October. Until that is done real implementation of what is alleged to be prejudicial would not occur.

7. Implementation of executive decisions is in the hands of the Government of the day. The question . as to whether such action is constitutional or there is any impediment therein which would make Government order vulnerable is a matter for Court's examination. In these circumstances we do not think we should interfere with the Government's day to day action but Government should also take note of the fact that the matter is pending for judicial consideration and modulate its action taking into consideration the prevailing situation. We intend to say nothing more on that aspect for the present.

8. Lot of emphasis has been laid on either side on the human factor. It was particularly brought to our notice that subsequent to the order of 11th September, 1990, agitation has, spread into every nook and corner of the country and public life has been disturbed; human