P.K. Balasubramanyan, CJ.-LPA No. 237 of 2003 is filed by the State. LPA No. 176 of 2003 is filed by an Intervener in the writ petition, with the leave of the Court. WP (C) No. 1359 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner therein claiming to be aggrieved by the modified order or direction issued by the State. That writ petition, when it came up before a Learned Single Judge who had rendered the decision under appeal, was referred to the Division Bench in view of the pendency of the appeal by the State.

2. The subject matter of the dispute is the reservation for admission to professional colleges in the State. The State of Jharkhand proposed 73 percent reservation for the Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Extremely Backward Classes and the Backward Classes put together. The same was challenged before this Court in various writ petitions. The matters were referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench of 5 Judges, took up the matter for hearing. It was then brought to their Lordships' notice that the question to be decided was pending decision in the Supreme Court in Voice (Consumer Care Council) vs. State of Tamil Nadu. It was submitted that the question whether the State could make reservation exceeding fifty percent was the question that was involved in that proceeding pending before the Supreme Court and that was the question that had to be decided by this Court in the case before it. The Full Bench thereupon adjourned the proceedings to await the decision of the Supreme Court. But the Full Bench thought that an interim direction was necessary, especially in the context of the ratio of the decision in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217]. The Full Bench therefore directed that only 50% of the appointment may be from the reserved categories and the balance 23 percent out of 73% may be provisionally made on the basis of merit. The Court also directed that the appointment to be made in the 50% reserved categories should be on proportionate basis with due reference and regard being had to the percentage of the categories as constituting the sum total of the original impugned 73%. We may notice that at that stage, reservation to the respective categories was as follows:(i) Scheduled Castes .. 14%.

(ii) Scheduled Tribes ... 32%.

(iii) Extremely Backward Classes ... 18%.

(iv) Backward Classes 9%.

Total 73%.

3. Apparently, the State felt some difficulty in implementing the interim direction of the Full Bench. The difficulty was felt, according to the State, in working out the proportion as indicated by the Full Bench. The State, therefore, sought a clarification or modification of the direction. The Full Bench clarified the order. The Court made it clear that the Court had not intended to fix any particular percentage with respect to any class or category constituting the fifty percent sum total of the reservation. Based on the established norms and applicable parameters, it was open to the State to fix the, appropriate percentage of quotas with respect to each individual class and category as it may objectively and fairly decide, constituting sum total of fifty percent. We may notice here that the two sets of writ petitions before the Full Bench related to appointment and admission to educational institutions. A quota for admission to educational institution was fixed by an executive order at 73 percent. That had also to be reduced to 50% pending final decision by the Full Bench. The Full Bench had postponed the final decision to await the decision of the Supreme Court in view of the pendency of the case before that Court. The State, therefore, issued another direction or an executive order reducing the quota to fifty percent in all. This time around, the State did not provide separately for Extremely Backward Category or Backward Category, but made reservation in that behalf applicable to both categories. The reduced percentage of reservation provided was as follows:-

(i) Scheduled Caste 10%

(ii) Scheduled