The court upheld the Haryana Backward Classes Act, affirming that legislative actions must be backed by periodic verification of 'backwardness' to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates.

JUDGMENT

S.S. Saron, J.

This judgment and order will dispose of the above mentioned four writ petitions that have been filed which primarily seek the quashing and invalidation of Schedule-III (Backward Classes Block ‘C’) of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 (Haryana Act No. 15 of 2016) (‘2016 Act’ - for short) stating the same to be contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution, ultra vires, contemptuous, arbitrary; besides, being null and void. . The Act was notified on 12.05.2016.

2. In Murari Lal Gupta’s case, it is inter alia stated that in terms of the impugned provisions of Schedule III of the 2016 Act, reservation to six castes, i.e. Jat, Jat Sikh, Ror, Bishnoi, Tyagi, Mulla Jat/Muslim Jat has been provided by declaring them as Backward Classes Block ‘C’. According to the petitioners, this reservation is without any valid and lawful basis, besides, being contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Singh and others v. Union of India , (2015) 4 SCC 697. The said provisions of Schedule III of the 2016 Act, in fact amount to circumventing the Supreme Court mandate in Ram Singh’s case (supra) which, it is submitted, is impermissible in law. A final judgment once rendered operates and remains in force until it is altered by the Court in an appropriate proceeding. A legislation nullifying the judgment is constitutionally impermissible. Schedule III of the 2016 Act has been enacted on the basis of the report of Justice K.C. Gupta Commission, which had been set up for the identification of the backwardness of classes for the purpose of providing adequate reservation in services and in educational institutions for their upliftment. The petitioners submit that the report of Justice K.C. Gupta Commission was not accepted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ram Singh’s case (supra). Besides, after the judgment was passed in the said case on 17.03.2015 till the passing of the impugned legislation, no new facts had emerged nor was there any change in the circumstances which would warrant the passing of such legislation.

3. An interim order, in fact, was passed by this Court in Ved Parkash and another v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 9132 of 2015) whereby earlier notification dated 24.01.2013 issued by the Governor of Haryana declaring Bishnoi, Jat, Jat Sikh, Ror and Tyagi as special backward classes and providing 10% reservation in jobs under Government/ Government Undertakings and Local Bodies as well as in educational institutions for these special backward classes in exclusion to the already notified 27% reservation provided for the backward classes was stayed by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2015. A somewhat similar order was also passed in CWP No. 2441 of 2014 on 29.03.2016 and during this period also, there was no change in the circumstances. The only new change in circumstances has been that there were occurrences of violent agitations and threats of repetition of more violent agitations that the impugned enactment was passed. The factual position was that the Haryana State Legislature did not have any information or materials before it concerning the backwardness of the aforesaid six castes mentioned in Schedule III of the 2016 Act. There was no material to contradict or doubt the judgment in Ram Singh’s case (supra). Therefore, according to the petitioners, the legislative exercise of enacting Schedule III to the 2016 Act amounts to overruling the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Singh’s case (supra). The impugned legislation makes reservations to the extent of 10% for recruitment to Class III and Class IV posts and 6% to Class I and Class II posts, besides, there is 10% reservation for admissions in educational institutions for the six castes mentioned in Schedule III to the 2016 Act.

4. In Kumhar Maha Sabha, Kumhar Dharamshala v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 11064 of 2016) a similar challenge to Schedule III of the 2016 Act has been made in terms o