1. Dispute over reservation percentages for SC, ST, and OBC candidates in a Central Educational Institution following the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Manipur at Imphal)
L. Nageswara Rao, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Shri Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The Manipur University and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34681 of 2017]
Decided On : 05-01-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. M.B.R.S. Raju, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Mohammed Shahrukh, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mr. H.D. Dubey, Adv. Ms. Rajshi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Adv. Mr. Arun Nagar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. M.B.R.S. Raju, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Mohammed Shahrukh, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mr. H.D. Dubey, Adv. Ms. Rajshi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Adv. Mr. Arun Nagar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Reports and recommendations made by Parliamentary Committees/Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute can be used as external aids to interpret meaning of ambiguous words in a statutory provision wherever considered necessary.
(2) Admission in Post Graduate Courses – Compliance with reservation norms must be ensured.
(1) Reports and recommendations made by Parliamentary Committees/Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute can be used as external aids to interpret meaning of ambiguous words in a statutory provision wherever considered necessary.
(2) Admission in Post Graduate Courses – Compliance with reservation norms must be ensured.
Subject
RESERVATION - CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) ACT, 2006
Act Referred
CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RESERVATION IN ADMISSION ACT: S.3
PARENT ACT: S.3(i), S.3(ii), S.3(iii)
PARENT ACT: S.3(i), S.3(ii), S.3(iii)
Headnote
(A) Interpretation of Statute – External Aids – Reports and recommendations made by Parliamentary Committees/Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute can be used as external aids to interpret meaning of ambiguous words in a statutory provision wherever considered necessary – It can also be taken note of as to existence of a historical fact – At the same time, such Reports are not decisive and Court is free to arrive at a different conclusion based on its own findings and other evidence produced by parties. (Para 25)
(B) Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 – Section 3 – Admission in Post Graduate Courses – Compliance with reservation norms – On the date immediately preceding date of commencement of Reservation Act, respondent No. 1-University had been reserving 2% seats for SC and 31% for ST candidates for purposes of admission – Once two provisos were inserted in Section 3 of Parent Act by virtue of Amendment Act, general norms of reservation as laid down in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of Parent Act had to be restricted in terms of said provisos – Underlying intent of Amendment Act was to secure a particular percentage of seats through reservation for a set of candidates and leave some space for capping of seats for OBC candidates, depending on circumstances contemplated in Clauses (a) and (b) of the second proviso to amended Section 3 – Respondent No.1-University has clarified in its affidavit that prior to commencement of Reservation Act, prevalent percentage of reservation for ST and SC candidates was 31% and 2% respectively – Nothing to the contrary has been brought forth by appellant – That being the position, respondent No. 1 – University was right in reverting back to position obtaining immediately before commencement of Reservation Act by reserving seats in respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, pegged at 31%, 2% and 17% respectively which was in consonance with Manipur State Reservation Policy – View taken by Single Judge that after amendment of Reservation Act, respondent No. 1-University had to follow reservation norms of 2% for SC candidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in consonance with second proviso to Section 3 of Reservation Act inserted by virtue of Amendment Act, endorsed. (Paras 29, 30, 31 and 34)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21st 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 after amendment of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, in the year 2012, on introduction of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012, respondent No. 1 - Manipur University is required to follow the reservation norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste [SC], 31% for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the Other Backward Classes [OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.
Findings of Court:
Single Judge is perfectly right in making the observation that formulae for fixing the percentage of reservation for the SC and ST candidates and for determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for OBC candidates under the second proviso of Section 3, ought to be gathered from the same source and any other interpretation would lead to uncertainty.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the 2012 Amendment applies to all specified north-eastern regions or only Sixth Schedule tribal areas, and if SC reservation can be reduced below 15%. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. The Amendment Act recognizes North Eastern demography to resolve difficulties in implementing general reservation norms while protecting tribal interests and maintaining a 50% cap. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
4. For CEIs in specified north-eastern regions, reservation norms are governed by the second proviso to Section 3, allowing percentages existing immediately before the 2006 Act. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
5. Appeal dismissed; reservation norms of 2% for SC, 31% for ST, and 17% for OBC upheld. (Para 34 , 35 )
6. Does the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012 apply to all Central Educational Institutions in the specified north-eastern region?
Yes, the Amendment Act applies to all CEIs in the specified north-eastern region, regardless of whether they are situated in tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. (Para 27 , 33 )
7. How are reservation percentages for SC and ST candidates determined for CEIs in the specified north-eastern region under the second proviso to Section 3?
They are determined based on the percentages existing on the date immediately preceding the commencement of the 2006 Act, ensuring that the interests of the local tribal population are protected. (Para 27 , 29 , 31 )
8. Must the reference period for determining OBC reservation be the same as that for SC and ST reservation under the second proviso?
Yes, the reference point must be the same because calculating the OBC quota requires first determining the combined SC and ST percentages as they existed before the 2006 Act. (Para 32 , 33 )
9. Do the general reservation percentages in Section 3(i)-(iii) apply to CEIs in the specified north-eastern region?
No, for CEIs in the specified north-eastern region, the two provisos appended to Section 3 govern the norms, overriding the general percentages of 15%, 7.5%, and 27%. (Para 30 , 33 )
JUDGMENT :
Hima Kohli, J.
Leave granted.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21st 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 after the amendment of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 20061[For short “the Reservation Act”], in the year 2012, on introduction of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 20122[For short ‘the Amendment Act”], respondent No. 1 -Manipur University3[‘University’] is required to follow the reservation norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste [SC], 31% for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the Other Backward Classes [OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.
2. To contextualize the issue raised in the present appeal, it is necessary to briefly refer to the relevant facts of the case. Respondent no. 1University was initially established as a ‘State University’ under the Manipur University Act, 1980 that came into force on 05th June, 1980. In the year 2005, the Manipur University Act was legislated, whereafter respondent No. 1 – University was converted from a ‘State University’ to a ‘Central University’ w.e.f. 13th October, 2005. On 04th January, 2007, the Reservation Act was notified. Section 3 of the said Act prescribed reservation of seats in the Central Educational Institutions and laid down as follows:
“3. Reservation of seats in Central Educational Institutions. –
The reservation of seats in admission and its extent in a Central Educational Institution shall be provided in the following manner, namely :-
i. out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty, fifteen per cent. seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes;
ii. out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty, seven and one-half per cent. seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes;
iii. out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty, twenty-seven per cent. seats shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes.”
[emphasis supplied]
3. The expression “out of the annual permitted strength” referred to in Section 3 above, has been defined in Section 2(b) in the following words:
“2. Definitions:-
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
xxx xxx xxx
b. "annual permitted strength" means the number of seats, in a course or programme for teaching or instruction in each branch of study or faculty authorised by an appropriate authority for admission of students to a Central Educational Institution;
xxx xxx xxx”
4. From the academic year 2009-10 onwards, respondent No. 1 – University started following the reservation norms as prescribed in the Reservation Act. On 20th June, 2012, the aforesaid Statute was amended by 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 clause and two provisos were inserted in Section 3. Further, Clause (a) of Section 4 was omitted and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 were amended. The aforesaid Amendment Act, 2012 that forms the bedrock of the grievance raised in the present appeal, is extracted below for ready reference:
“THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
(RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) AMENDMENT ACT, 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 Parliament in the Sixty-third Year of the Republic of India as follows:
SECTION -1. Short title.-This Act may be called the Central Educational institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012.
SECTION -2. Amendment of section 2 -In section 2 of the Central 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" mea
