IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 DATE OF DECISION : 7^th July, 2025 Komalpreet Kaur Dhillon …. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY * * *

Present : Mr.Satnam Singh Abiana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.1- Union of India. Mr.Puneet Gupta, Mr.Anil Rana and Mr.Ravindra Singh, Advocates for respondent No.2 – Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.

Ms. Lovenish Kaur, Advocate for Mr.Heman Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.5- University Grants Commission.

* * *

SHEEL NAGU, CJ. (Oral)

1. The sole petitioner in the present petition belongs to Backward Class, she being a Jat Sikh (except in Bharatpur and Dhaulpur Districts) Community, Rajasthan which is recognized as Backward Class under the Government of India.

1.1 Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that no reservation for Backward Classes is provided in admissions at respondent No.2 – Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, Punjab, constituted under Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab Act, 2006.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that despite law laid down by the Apex Court in the celebrated case of Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India 1992 Suppl.(3) SCC 217, where, reservation for Other Backward Classes has been upheld and also looking to the fact that other National Law Universities have provisions for reserving 27% of seats for OBC category, the respondent No.2 University by not providing any reservation for OBCs has acted unconstitutionally.

3. This Court need not enter into the prolixity of adjudication since similar issue of non-reservation for OBC category in the Panjab University has already been decided by this Court in its common judgment dated 14.08.2024 in CWP-16520-2023 titled ‘Vyom Yadav and Union of India and others’ and connected matters. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

“16. The complete conspectus of the above is that it is ultimately for the State to provide for reservation for a class/category and no State can be compelled and/or no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to provide for reservation for a particular class or category. A writ of Mandamus can only be issued where a legal right vests in the petitioner and there is a violation of that right by the government. Where a legal right is violated by a government order made pursuant to an existing reservation policy, a writ of mandamus can lie. However, the Court cannot interfere in the policy making sphere of the government and instruct it to provide reservations.

17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Panjab University (UIET) or Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Sector 26, Chandigarh (CCET-26) or Panjab University, Chandigarh, do not come within the ambit of the term ‘Central Educational Institution’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the CEI Act, 2006 and thus, reservation in terms of Section 3 of the Act (supra) cannot be forced upon them. Reservation rules of Chandigarh Administration and Panjab University, Chandigarh not providing reservation for SEBC/OBC category, in admissions to the institutions under it, is a matter of policy decision and does not vest any right in the petitioner to seek issuance of mandamus to grant such reservation. The Information Brochure 2024 does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness for not having provided reservation in admission under OBC category as such.”

3.1 The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken the aforesaid view primarily on the ground that even the Constitution under Article 15(4) does not mandatorily provide for reservation. The said provision under the Constitution qua reservation is only an enabling provision, thereby, leaving it to the concerned Institute/State to provide for reservation