By the Court.—Competing claims of reservation, the Other Backward Classes who are the petitioners and the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes whose cause is represented by the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University and defended by the intervenors of the same category, has brought forth at the forefront another issue of social dimension, namely the right to get admitted against a fixed reserve quota in an educational institution imparting higher education.

2. Writ Petition No. 9643 (MB) of 2016 is by an association arrayed as petitioner No. 1 professing to espouse the cause of students aspiring to seek admission in the respondent-university by way of reservation under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 15 claim themselves to be of the Other Backward Classes and urge that 27% quota reserving seats for admission in the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University be implemented and to that extent, provisions of Clause 9 of Chapter VII of the First Academic Ordinances of the University be declared as ultra vires the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No:5 of 2007), hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Act. It is also urged that the percentage of reservation as fixed in Section 3 of the 2006 Act be directed to be implemented for which an interpretation is sought from this Court to read the provisos added to Section 3 in the 2006 Act by the amendment inserted under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the 2012 amending Act so as to give effect to 27% reservation in favour of OBC’s. It is urged that denying reservation as already provided for under the main Section 3 of the 2006 Act which has neither been repealed nor rescinded, the same amounts to curtailing the rights of the petitioners that was constitutionally enabled under Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. It is therefore urged that the said provisos added by the 2012 amending Act be read in a manner so as to give effect to the reservation of 27% to the Other Backward Category candidates that has been entirely denied by the respondent-University under the garb of the said provisos as well as the provisions of reservation made under the First Ordinances referred to here-in-above for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

3. Another Writ Petition No. 15259 (MB) of 2016 has been filed raising the same issue but this writ petition is by an individual.

4. A preliminary objection had been raised on behalf of the Union of India as well as by the University that the writ petition filed by a Society would not be maintainable for which we had granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioners to file a response deserves disposal at outset. Affidavits have been filed to that effect. A reply to the said preliminary objection has been filed on record and the Memorandum of Association and the Bye-laws have also been appended alongwith the same which indicate that Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Association read with Clause 2 thereof clearly defines the objects and reasons for the upliftment and advancement of the children and women of the Other Backward Classes. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner No. 1-Society of Writ Petition No. 9643 (MB) of 2016 is a stranger so as to raise this issue as involved in the present case, as it clearly is an issue relating to the opportunity for children of the Other Backward Classes to receive higher education in an university. The action taken by the University in not providing the benefits of reservations to the OBC’s has been challenged which is directly in the interest of all students aspiring to seek admission by way of reservation. This cause therefore, in our opinion, is clearly connected with the educational achievements of childr