IN

I.

FACTS OF THE CASE.

II.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Submissions of Petitioners

Submissions of the State

Submissions of the WB Commission for Backward classes

.Submissions of the National Commission for Backward Classes

III.

ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT

A.MAINTAINBILITY OF THE PILS

i. Rule 56 of the writ rules of the Calcutta H.C.

ii. The Alternate Remedy Argument

iii. The Bar of Service Matters in PILs

B.THE BRIEF HISTORY OF IDENTIFICATION OF THE OBCs UNDER ARTICLE 16 (4) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

C. THE ROLE OF THE WEST BENGAL COMMISSION FOR THE BACKWARD CLASSES UNDER THE ACT OF 1993 AND ART.16(4)

i. The Origination of The Commission

ii. Section 9 of The Act Of 1993

iii. Section 11 of the Act of 1993

D. SUB-CLASSIFICATION AND RELIANCE ON THE SACHAR COMMITTEE REPORT TO SUBSTITUTE AND BYPASS THE COMMISSION

E. THE STATE COULD NOT HAVE BYPASSED THE COMMISSION WHILE SUB-CLASSIFYING THE CLASSES

F. THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL IT

G. RIGHT TO RESERVATION IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND ADDITION OF THE AFFECTED CLASSES

H. THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE WEST BENGAL BACKWARD CLASSES (OTHER THAN SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES) (RESERVATION OF VACANCIES IN SERVICES AND POSTS) ACT, 20