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, 2012.

i. The Object and Purpose of the Act of 2012-

ii. The Act of 2012 does not make any reference to, or prescribe for the application of the Act of 1993

iii. Fraud on Constitutional power

iv. The exclusion and/or non-reference to the role of the Commission is MANIFESTLY ARBITRARY

I. CONTEXTUAL READING OF SECTION 2(h) TO INCLUDE THE COMMISSION AND THE 1993 ACT IN ITS DEFINITION

J. THE SECOND PART OF SECTION 2(h) AND Section 16 IS HIT BY EXCESSIVE DELEGATION AND IS IN DEROGATION OF ART. 213 OF THE CONSTITUTION

K. SECTION 16 OF THE ACT OF 2012 FALLS FOR CONSIDERATION AS AN OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCE OF THE CHALLENGE MADE TO SECTION 2(h).

L. THE VALIDITY OF THE DEFINITION OF LISTS UNDER SECTION 2(f) OF THE ACT OF 2012.

M. THE LEGALITY OF THE SUB-CLASSIFICATION UNDER SECTION 5 (a) OF THE ACT OF 2012

i. The Proviso To Section 5(a) and the doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness

N. THE REVIVAL OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE STATE EXECUTIVE FROM APRIL 2010 TO MAY 2012.

i. The sub-classification by Executive order dated 24th September 2010.

O. HAS THE STATE APPLIED ITS MIND TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE 77 CLASSES MADE BETWEEN APRIL 2010 TO MAY 2012.

P. HAS THE COMMISSION ACTED INDEPENDENTLY AND BONAFIDE AND IN TERMS OF THE MANDATE UNDER THE 1993 AND THE DICTA OF THE SUPREME COURT IN MAKING THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE YEAR 2009-2010 TO THE STATE ?

i. The Procedure Of Identification Adopted By The Commission Qua The Classification Of 77 Classes

ii. A summary of the reports of the Commission

iii. The deficiencies in such reports

iv. The Art. 16(4)’S Backwardness And Inadequate Representation

v. No effective public hearing was even notified

Q.RELEVANCE OF THE REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR BACKWARD CLASSES TO THE PRESENT CASE

R. THE REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION ARE VITIATED BY PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY, MANIFEST ARBITRARINESS, AND DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY.

i. Procedural Impropriety

ii. Colorable Exercise Of Power

iii. Manifest Arbitrariness

S. CAN RELIGION BE THE SOLE BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER ARTICLE 16 (4) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT OF 1993 ?

T. THE PRINCIPLE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING AND THE POWER OF THE HIGH COURT TO MOULD RELIEF

U.THE PERCENTAGE OF RESERVATION TO BE ENJOYED BY THE 66 CLASSES ENLISTED BEFORE APRIL, 2010.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS

B. DIRECTIONS