1. Dispute regarding reservation quotas for sports persons and affected persons in government and private medical institutions under the 2006 Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 96
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
The State of Punjab - Appellant
Versus
Anshika Goyal and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos. 319-320 of 2022
Decided On : 25-01-2022
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide reservation for a particular category is subject to the State's conscious policy decision and cannot be interfered with by the court. The judgment emphasized that the State Government has the discretion to prescribe the percentage of reservation for a particular category, and the court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to alter the State's policy decision.
Subject
Civil Law - Constitutional Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Reservation - State of Punjab - Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006 - [Section 6] - The court discussed the reservation of seats in private health sciences educational institutions as provided under Section 6 of the 2006 Act. The judgment highlighted the State's reservation policy, the issuance of notifications for admission in Medical/Dental Colleges, and the subsequent challenges and directions issued by the High Court. The court also discussed the State's conscious policy decision to provide 1% reservation for sports persons and the legal principles governing the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide reservation for a particular category.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's judgment directing the State to issue a fresh notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental Institutions in the State of Punjab and further directing the provision of a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges. The State argued against the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide reservation for a particular category.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue of providing reservation for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental Institutions had become academic for the academic year 2019-20, as admissions were already given pursuant to the interim order. The court disposed of the appeals, keeping the question of law open. The court also quashed the High Court's direction to provide a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges, stating that no writ of mandamus could have been issued by the High Court.
Issues: The issues included the High Court's directions to the State to issue a fresh notification providing for reservation/quota for specific categories and the State's conscious policy decision to provide 1% reservation for sports persons. The court also addressed the legality of the High Court's issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of reservation for sports persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide 3% reservation/quota for sports persons, instead of 1% as provided by the State Government. The court also emphasized the legal principles governing the issuance of a writ of mandamus, citing relevant case law.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's directions were disposed of. The court quashed the High Court's direction to provide a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges, stating that no writ of mandamus could have been issued by the High Court. The court kept the question of law open and allowed individuals with grievances to take recourse to law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR Mr. R. P. Sharma, AOR Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Ritesh Khara, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Baby Devi Bonia, Adv. Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Adv. Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv. Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Adv. Ms. Anmol Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gajender Singh, Adv. Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR Mr. R. P. Sharma, AOR Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Ritesh Khara, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Baby Devi Bonia, Adv. Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Adv. Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv. Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Adv. Ms. Anmol Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gajender Singh, Adv. Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Reservation percentages are conscious policy decisions; Article 15(5) is an enabling provision, and courts cannot plunge into policy-making via mandamus. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State to provide reservation or prescribe a specific percentage for a particular category. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Appeals disposed of as academic regarding private institute reservations; direction for 3% sports quota quashed. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Can a court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the State to provide reservation for a specific category?
No. Articles 15 and 16 are enabling provisions that empower the State to take affirmative action, but they do not mandate it. Courts cannot issue a mandamus to compel the State to provide reservations. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Can a court direct the State to provide a specific percentage of reservation instead of the percentage decided by the State's policy?
No. Fixing the percentage of reservation is a conscious policy decision of the State Government. Courts cannot interfere with such policy decisions or issue a mandamus to prescribe a particular percentage. (Para 7 , 9 )
7. Is the State required to collect quantifiable data to justify its decision not to provide reservations?
No. While quantifiable data is a prerequisite for providing reservations in promotions, it is not required when the State Government decides not to provide reservations. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 26.07.2019 and 08.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.17248/2019 and CWP No. 18989 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has directed the State to issue a fresh notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab and further directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats as well and further directed that the fresh notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges, the State of Punjab has preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:
The State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006 Act’) for the regulation of admission, fixation of fee and making of reservation in Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions in the State of Punjab. Section 6 of the 2006 Act provides for reservation of seats and as per the said Section, all private health sciences educational institutions shall reserve seats for admission in open merit category and management category, for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to such extent, as may be notified by the State Government in the official gazette from time to time.
2.1 The State of Punjab framed its Sports Policy in the year 2018 which provided that 3% reservation in admissions will be provided for graded sports persons. Clause 10 of the said policy also provided that the said Sports Policy shall prevail on all the Departments and Organizations of Government of Punjab, however, if any other department wishes to have specific policy, it will be finalised in consultation with the Department of Sports. It appears that by order dated 25.07.2019, a conscious decision was taken by the Government of Punjab to provide 1% reservation for sports persons. The said order was passed taking into consideration Clause 10 of the Sporty Policy, 2018.
2.2 For the academic year 2018-19, the State Government issued notification dated 6.2.2018 for admission in Medical/Dental Colleges. Clause 16 of the said notification provided for reservation in Government Medical/Dental Colleges and Clause 17 provided for admission to private institutes. However, it appears that though 1% seats were reserved for sports persons and the children/grand children of terrorist affected persons so far as the State quota seats in Government Institutions are concerned, similar reservation was not provided for admission to private institutes even with respect to government quota seats in the private institutes.
2.3 A bunch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court for quashing Clause 17 of notification dated 6.2.2018 to the extent of not providing the reservation for sports persons and children/grand children of terrorist affected persons in the private institutes which as such were provided for the State quota seats in government institutions.
2.4 By judgment and order dated 23.08.2018, the High Court allowed the said writ petitions partially and declared that reservation that is applicable to Government institutes shall extend to the private institutes as well. The judgment and order passed by the High Court in the case of Bani Suri and others was challenged before this Court by way of a special leave petition (civil) no.28491/2018 and this Court vide order dated 12.11.2018 dismissed the said special leave petition by specifically observing that the order passed by the High Court shall not be treated as a precedent in any ot
