Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ. and Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
VED PRAKASH SINGH THAKUR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3174 of 2019, 3195 of 2019, 3321 of 2019, 3415 of 2019, 3709 of 2019, 3367 of 2019, 3484 of 2019, 3325 of 2019, 3448 of 2019, 3400 of 2019, 3572 of 2019, 3690 of 2019, 3721 of 2019, 79 of 2019, 3489 of 2019, 3752 of 2019, 3950 of 2019
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Atul Kesharwani, Advocate, Palash Tiwari, Advocate, Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate, Priyankesh Chandrakar, Advocate, Prajnal Shukla, Advocate, Nishikant Sinha, Advocate, Rohit Sharma, Advocate, Prateek Sharma, Advocate, Shashank Thakur, Advocate, Anish Tiwari, Advocate, Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate, S.C. Verma, Advocate, Vikram Sharma, Advocate
Headnote:
Reorganization Act, 1980 - Act, 1994 - Section 4 – Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14, 16(4), 330 and 332 - Ordinance under challenge - Interim order - Impugned Memorandums - Granting enhancement - Interim relief sought - In response to interim relief sought for official Respondents/State filed a detailed reply seeking to sustain course of action pursued in enhancing reservation - Matter was heard elaborately by this Court and an interim order of stay was granted directing Respondents not to pursue any further steps for providing benefits flowing from Ordinance under challenge granting enhancement of reservation to OBCs until further orders - It was also made clear that this Court was not mentioning anything with regard to reservation to EWS category brought about as per very same amendment which was pending consideration before Apex Court with reference to amendment to Constitution - It is also alleged that amendment is politically motivated merely with reference to total population of State without collecting any quantifiable data to ascertain whether OBC community was adequately represented or not- As a matter of paradox it was only after issuing an Ordinance as above on that particulars of data to be quantified has been called for as per Annexure-P/5 in Writ Petition – Held, It was submitted that pursuant to interim order passed by this Court issue projected in above batch of cases has been considered meticulously and that learned Advocate General has alerted Government as to various factual and legal aspects - It was also stated that Government was acting upon same and was intending to bring about some changes as a matter of policy which may require some time - In said circumstances four weeks time was sought for in this regard and matter was adjourned accordingly - In view of turn of events grievance of Petitioners stands redressed pursuant to interim order passed by this Court and subsequent natural death of Ordinance (not having been tabled in Legislative Assembly) by virtue of operation of law under Article 213 (2)(a) of Constitution of India - Writ petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - Constitutional validity of Section 4(2)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') as amended by the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) (Sanshodhan) Ordinance, 2019 (for short 'the Ordinance') whereby the extent of reservation provided under the Act to an extent of 14% has been enhanced to 27% taking the total extent of reservation under four different segments to 82% (Scheduled Caste-13%, Scheduled Tribe-32%, Other Backward Class-27% and Economically Weaker Section-10%) for class I, II, III and IV posts is put to challenge in these cases. It is pointed out that as per the law declared by a 9 member Bench of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India & Others, 1992 Supp3 SCC 217 and the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2006 8 SCC 212 , the reservation, under no circumstance shall exceed 50% and that the amendment is totally contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that when the existing reservation was enhanced from 50% to 58% as per the earlier amendment brought out in the year 2012, it was already subjected to challenge and the issue is pending consideration in Writ Petition (C) No. 591 of 2012 and connected cases.
2. In response to the interim relief sought for, the official Respondents/State filed a detailed reply seeking to sustain the course of action pursued in enhancing the reservation. The matter was heard elaborately by this Court and an interim order of stay was granted on 04.10.2019 directing the Respondents not to pursue any further steps for providing benefits flowing from the Ordinance under challenge, granting enhancement of reservation to the OBCs from 14% to 27% until further orders. It was also made clear that, this Court was not mentioning anything with regard to the reservation to the EWS category brought about as per the very same amendment, which was pending consideration before the Apex Court with reference to the amendment to the Constitution.
3. To understand the rival contentions and the reasons for granting interim order as above, we find it appropriate to extract the full text of the interim order dated 04.10.2019, which is self-explanatory, as given below:
"1. Whether the State Government is justified in bringing an amendment to Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1994'), whereby the percentage of reservation in public employment to the Other Backward Class (OBC) has been raised from 14% to 27%, taking the total extent of reservation in the State from 58% to 82%; that too when the earlier instance of enhancement of total reservation from 50% to 58% (as per the Amendment brought about in the year 2012) is already under challenge and is pending consideration before this Court, where an interim order has been passed, making it clear that it would be 'subject to the result' of the writ petition ?
2. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is against the amendment brought about as per an 'Ordinance', contending that the enhancement of reservation is virtually contrary to the law declared by the 'Nine' Member Bench of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 1992 Supp3 SCC 217 and in M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India and Others,2006 2 SCC 212. It is also alleged that the amendment is politically motivated, merely with reference to the total population of the State, without collecting any quantifiable data to ascertain whether the OBC community was adequately represented or not. As a matter of paradox, it was only after issuing an 'Ordinance' as above on 04.09.2019, that the particulars of the data to
