ORDER 1. SLP (C) No .... of 2005 (CC No. 12606 of 2005) is taken on board. 2. Permission to file special leave petition and civil appeal is granted. 3. Exemption allowed. 4. Applications for impleadment, deletion of respondents from the array of parties, permission to file lengthy list of dates are allowed. 5. A five - Judge Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by four different opinions has declared as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, the Andhra Pradesh Reservation of Seats in the Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Act, 2005 (A.P. Act 21 of 2005) dated 25 - 10 - 2005 (for short "the Act"). The Act replaced Ordinance 13 of 2005 dated 20 - 6 - 2005. It is not in dispute that the provisions in the Act are similar to that of the Ordinance. 6. Considering that substantial questions of public importance are involved in the matters, the High Court granted to the State leave to file an appeal before this Court. Various appeals and special leave petitions have a been filed challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court. We grant leave in the special leave petitions, admit the civil appeals and direct them to be placed before a Constitution Bench. 7. At this stage, the question is of granting stay of the impugned judgment. The High Court, while pronouncing the judgment, granted an order of status quo. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that b status quo should continue ~o operate to the extent that such of the persons who have been granted admissions in the educational institutions would continue with their courses and would not be disturbed. Likewise, if any appointment to public employment has been made under the impugned legislation, the same shall also not be disturbed. 8. In support of the contention that the operation of the impugned judgment may be stayed which means the law which has been held to be unconstitutional may continue to operate till the matters are pending in this Court, reliance has been placed on observations made in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India! in particular paras 694 and 788. 8. In support of the contention that the operation of the impugned judgment may be stayed which means the law which has been held to be unconstitutional may continue to operate till the matters are pending in this Court, reliance has been placed on observations made in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India! in particular paras 694 and 788. Further, it has been contended that the very language of Article 16(4) when compared to Article d 15(4) makes out a distinction inasmuch as the requirement under Article 16(4) is that a provision can be made in respect of a class of citizens which is not adequately represented whereas in Article 15(4), reference is for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes. The contention is that the High Court has not considered the impact of Article 16(4) while invalidating the Act. On the other hand, our attention has been e drawn to clause (3) of the Ordinance which shows the object with which the legislation was brought in. It refers to social, educational and economic backwardness of the members of the Muslim community residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh being declared as backward class and be included in the list of backward classes prepared by the Government from time to time. We have also perused the report of the Commission, in particular from p. 128 to f p.132. 9. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the constitutional provisions and the report as also the impugned judgment, we are not inclined to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and make operational a law which has been invalidated by the High Court, as an interim measure. In view of the above, there will be a limited stay, above - indicated. Court Masters