ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

1. All the writ petitions are heard by consent as assigned expressly. The issues are common and, therefore, this concluding common decision.

Introduction of the controversy

2. The constitutional reservation policy always put the respective State Government in imbroglio. It is going to last long, as no one in the present scenario or otherwise is in frame of mind to compromise. Having once granted the constitutionally recognized reservation in diverse areas including in the state employment, its total abolition is unwarrantable and without a solution. The legitimate rights once created and settled, since so many years, just cannot be taken away by a stroke of pen. It is not the case of grant of the reservation in service for the first time but question is of its continuance or discontinuance in part or full. Therefore, the crux of the matter is whether existing reservation policy, in the State employment, can be taken away by declaring such Reservation Statute and the Promotion Circulars, ultra-vires or illegal. To understand such situation and the dilemma of all the concerned, we have to see the constitutional provisions and the existing Reservation Policy.

3. The constitutional validity of Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001 (the Reservation Act) and Government circular, (GR No. BCC 2001/1887/PR. KR. 640/01/16B dated 25.05.2004) (The Promotion Circular) issued by the State of Maharashtra (The State) has been the focus of the writ petitions.

4. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) by judgment and order dated 28 November 2014 in Transfer Application Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014, (transferred Writ Petition No. 8452/2004 on 18 June 2013), has declared the Reservation Act and the Promotion Circular violative of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and of the judgment of Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

5. The operative part of the impugned judgment is:

“OPERATIVE ORDER

134. Thus, for the reasons separately set out, we concur in the conclusion that the impugned Act being Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001, is ultra-vires the Constitution and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Nagaraj and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 212. It will have to be and is hereby struck down. The impugned G.R. No. BCC 2001/1887/pr.kr.640/01/16B, dated 25th May, 2004 is also struck down. But we do realize that this judgment will be applicable only to the Maharashtra State Government employees and as mentioned at the outset, the Writ Petitions filed by the employees of other employers outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal are still pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It is almost certain that this judgment will be challenged before the Hon'ble High Court or may be Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in order to save all concerned from rushing in to the next step, we think the effectuation hereof should be put on hold. In other words, the operation hereof, should be stayed. We are so disposed in the set of the facts and circumstances to stay this order for a period of one year. The parties will be free in the meanwhile to move the Hon'ble Court before whom this order will be challenged for any direction about this period also. However, as already noted there are interim orders made by the Hon'ble High Court. The said orders are in force. They will continue to govern all concerned notwithstanding this judgment and the stay granted by us to our own judgment. We cannot and do not