JUDGMENT 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urged that denying reservation as already provided for under the main Section 3 of the 2006 Act which has neither been repealed nor rescinded, the same amounts to curtailing the rights of the petitioners that was constitutionally enabled under Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India.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. 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 children of the Backward Classes in an university which appears to have been established for under the objects as spelt out in the Memorandum of Association. Secondly, as the petitioners 2 to 15 are candidates of the Other Backward Classes they have the locus and also the grievance to maintain this petition. The other petition is in an individual capacity but in public interest for the cause of backward classes. The preliminary objection therefore raised has no substance and is overruled and the writ petitions so filed are held to be maintainable. 5. The other petition is in an individual capacity but in public interest for the cause of backward classes. The preliminary objection therefore raised has no substance and is overruled and the writ petitions so filed are held to be maintainable. 5. The issue primarily raised is, that if by invoking Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India, the Parliament enacted a special law, namely, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, then the same has to be given effect to, and any device either by way of a proviso or otherwise to deny the benefits granted under the 2006 Act would be an amendment in violation of Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India and the consequential action would also be arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended by the petitioners that when the Parliament itself has consciously extended the benefit of 27% reservation to the Other Backward Classes under the 2006 Act, then fixing a percentage of 50% so as to exhaust reservation only in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes would be discrimination between the oppressed backward classes and other weaker sections that is contrary to the theme and philosophy of Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India which essentially aims at providing an opportunity of education to all socially and educationally backward classes apart from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. By introducing the provisos in Section 3 of the 2006 Act, the advancement of the other backward classes to their exclusion as envisaged under Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India is being clearly impeded. The respondent-University under the garb of the amending Act 2012 cannot insist on denying the benefits of extending 27% reservation to the Other Backward Category classes as provided for in Section 3 of the 2006 Act. 6. To begin with Sri Amit Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioners had advanced the aforesaid submissions and had also amended the petition with a prayer to declare the provisos introduced into Section 3 of the 2006 Act by the 2012 amending Act as being ultra vires and quashing the same, but during the course of arguments, he gave up the aforesaid relief that stands recorded in our order dated 11.7.2016 which is extracted hereunder : “Heard Sri Amit Bose learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition had been amended questioning the second proviso to Section 3 of the Central Education Institution Reservation in Appointment Act, 2006 as inserted by the Amendment Act of 2012 and had sought its declaration as ultra vires to the provisions of the 2006 Act as well as Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India. Sri Bose submits that the petitioners do not press the aforesaid relief nor are they questioning the vires of the second proviso to Section 3 of the Amendment Act of 2012. He submits that the issue which is being raised is based entirely on the existing provisions and treating the 2012 Act to be intra vires. The Union of India has filed a counter-affidavit in a connected Writ Petition No. 14259(MB) of 2016 to which a reply has been filed today. Put up tomorrow.” 7. He accordingly advanced his submissions to urge that even if the second proviso has come into existence still the provisions of Section 3, as it originally stood, can be given effect to by interpreting the same to continue to extend the benefit of reservation to the Other Backward Category classes for admission in the respondent-University. 8. Before the dispute arose, the respondent-University had come to be established through a Central Act, namely, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Act, 1994 being Act No. 53 of 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 1994 Act. Section 4 of the Act indicates the objects & the purpose for which the University was established. 8. Before the dispute arose, the respondent-University had come to be established through a Central Act, namely, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Act, 1994 being Act No. 53 of 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 1994 Act. Section 4 of the Act indicates the objects & the purpose for which the University was established. The same is extracted hereunder : “The objects of the University shall be to promote advanced knowledge by providing instructional and research facilities in such branches of learning as it may deem fit; to make provisions for integrated courses in Science and key frontier areas of Technology and other allied disciplines in the educational programmes of the University; to offer appropriate courses relevant for the development of socially and economically depressed sections of the people, including agricultural technology and rural crafts; to promote the study of the principles for which Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar worked during his life time, namely, national integration, social justice and democratic way of life, and also study of the Constitutions of the world to take appropriate measures for promoting innovations in teaching learning processes in inter-disciplinary studies and research and pay special attention to the promotion of educational and economic interests and welfare of the people in general and members belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in particular by providing adequate percentage of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the University shall, in organising its activities, have due regard to the objects specified in the First Schedule.” 9. The University was conferred with powers under Section 5 of the Act with a specific power to fix quota for students belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for admission to the courses run by the University. Section 5 (xxi) is extracted hereunder : “(xxi) to fix quota for students belonging to the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes for admission purposes;” 10. The University was however open for all persons irrespective of any prohibitions subject to the powers of the University to make special provisions for the promotion of educational interests of women, physically handicapped or of persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society and in particular of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Section 7 of the Act is extracted hereunder : “7. Section 7 of the Act is extracted hereunder : “7. The University shall be open to all persons of either sex and of whatever caste, creed, race, class, place of domicile and it shall not be lawful for the University to adopt or impose on any person, any test whatsoever of religious belief or profession in order to entitle him to be appointed as a teacher of the University or to hold any other office therein or be admitted as a student in the University or to graduate thereat or to enjoy or exercise any privilege thereof. Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the University from making special provisions for the employment or promotion of educational interests of women, physically handicapped or of persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society and, in the particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.” 11. Section 27 of the Act makes a provision for the powers to frame Ordinances. Sub-Section (2) of Section 27 entails that the First Ordinances shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor with the previous approval of the Central Government and such Ordinances can be amended, repealed or added by the Board of Management in the manner prescribed by the Statutes. Section 27 (1) (a) provides for making of Ordinances for admission of students and their enrolment as such. Section 27 (1) (a) and Sub-Section (2) of Section 27 are extracted hereunder : “27. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely : (a) the admission of students to the University and their enrolment as such;” “(2) The first Ordinances shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor with the previous approval of the Central Government and the Ordinances so made may be amended, repealed or added to at any time by the Board of Management in the manner prescribed by the Statutes.” 12. The First Ordinances of the University are provided for in the Second Schedule of the Act. The framing of Ordinances after the establishment of the University are provided for in Statute 40 to the Second Schedule. 13. The First Ordinances of the University are provided for in the Second Schedule of the Act. The framing of Ordinances after the establishment of the University are provided for in Statute 40 to the Second Schedule. 13. It is to be noted that the First Academic Ordinances of the respondent-University that had been framed in October, 1996 and had been despatched to the Human Resources Development Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi on 16.10.1996 was approved by the Ministry on 28.1.1997. However, the same was published for the first time in the Gazette on 23.12.2004. A copy of the said Gazette is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In Chapter VII of the said Ordinance, a provision was made in Clause 9 as follows : “9. For the purpose of admission to all courses of study in the University, 50% of the seats shall be reserved for SC/ST students.” 14. Thus, the University in exercise of it’s powers of framing Ordinances for admission and providing reservation allocated 50% reservation of the seats in all courses of the University in favour of SC/ST students. 15. This was obviously done in the light of the objects of the 1994 Act which was reiterated by incorporating the same in the First Schedule of the Statutes which is as follows : “THE FIRST SCHEDULE (See Section 4) THE OBJECTS OF THE UNIVERSITY The University shall endeavour to promote advanced Knowledge by providing instructional and research facilities in Science and key and frontier areas of Technology and other allied disciplines and to offer appropriate courses relevant for the development of socially and economically depressed section of the people, including agricultural technology and rural crafts; to promote the study of the principles for which Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar worked during his lifetime, namely, national integration, social justice and democratic way of life, and also study of the constitutions of the world. It would take appropriate measures for promoting innovation in teaching-learning processes in inter-disciplinary studies and research and pay special attention to the promotion of educational and economic interests and welfare of the people in general and of members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in particular by providing adequate percentage of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The University shall, in organising its activities, have due regard to the objects specified in the First Schedule.” 16. The University shall, in organising its activities, have due regard to the objects specified in the First Schedule.” 16. The aforesaid provisions were made in the Act, Statutes and Ordinances of the respondent-University in the light of Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India. Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of India is extracted hereunder : “(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.” 17. Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India is extracted hereunder : “(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.” 18. Then came the enabling provision through the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 enforced w.e.f. 21.1.2006 and Sub-Article (5) was added in Article 15 which is extracted hereunder : “(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.” 19. Thus, came into being a special constitutional enabling provision under Part III of the Constitution for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for framing any special law relating to admission to educational institutions other than minority institutions referred to under Article 30 (1). With this enabling constitutional authority conferred on the State, the Parliament enacted Act No. 5 of 2007 being the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. 20. With this enabling constitutional authority conferred on the State, the Parliament enacted Act No. 5 of 2007 being the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. 20. The Bill which was introduced that narrated the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act which is extracted hereunder : “THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) ACT, 2006 Part IV of the Constitution containing the Directive Principles of State Policy, in Article 46, lays down that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice. Access to education is of utmost importance in insuring advancement of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, who are also referred to as the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). 2. The Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005, inserted clause (5) in Article 15 of the Constitution, with a view to promote the educational advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through special provisions relating to admission of students belonging to these categories in all educational institutions, including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State. In terms of this provision, Parliament as well as the State Legislatures are empowered to make appropriate laws for the educational advancement of the weaker sections of the people. 3. With a view to give effect to the Constitutional provisions, it is expedient and necessary to make statutory provisions in the proposed Bill for reservation in matters of admissions for the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SCs), the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens (OBCs) in the Central Educational Institutions, including institutions deemed to be Universities established, maintained or aided by the Central Government. The provisions of the proposed Bill, inter alia, will not apply to the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) to Article 30. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objective. ACT 5 of 2007 The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 14th December, 2006 and by the Rajya Sabha on 18th December, 2006 and received the assent of the President on 3rd January, 2007. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objective. ACT 5 of 2007 The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 14th December, 2006 and by the Rajya Sabha on 18th December, 2006 and received the assent of the President on 3rd January, 2007. It came on the Statute Book as THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) ACT, 2006 (5 OF 2007).” 21. A copy of the Act has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Section 2 (d) of the said Act made the provisions of the Act applicable to all Central Educational Institutions defined therein. The same is extracted hereunder : “(d) “Central Educational Institution” means — (i) a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act; (ii) an institution of national importance set up by an Act of Parliament: (iii) an institution, declared as a deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government; (iv) an institution maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government, whether directly or indirectly, and affiliated to an institution referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii), or a constituent unit of an institution referred to in clause (iii); (v) an educational institution set up by the Central Government under the Societies Registration Act, 1860;” 21-A. Section 2 (g) defines Other Backward Classes which is extracted hereunder: “(g) “Other Backward Classes” means the class or classes of citizens who are socially and educationally backward, and are so determined by the Central Government.” 22. Section 3, as it then stood in 2006 and which still continues to be on the Statute, is extracted hereunder : “3. The reservation of seats in admission and its extent in a Central Educational institution shall be provided in the following manner, namely : (i) out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or facility, fifteen percent seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes; (ii) out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or facility, seven and one-half percent seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes; (iii) out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty twenty-seven percent seats shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes.” 23. Section 4 of the Act provides that Section 3 shall not apply to certain classes of institutions which is extracted hereunder : “4. The provisions of Section 3 of this Act shall not apply to — (a) a Central Educational Institution established in the tribal area referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution; (b) the institutions of excellence, research institutions, institutions of national and strategic importance specified in the Schedule to this Act; Provided that the Central Government may, as and when considered necessary, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule; (c) a Minority Educational Institution as defined in this Act; (d) a course or programme of at high levels of specifications, including as the post-doctoral level, within any branch of study or faculty, which the Central Government may, in consultation with the appropriate authority, specify.” 24. Section 5 of the Act empowers every Central Educational Institution with prior approval of the appropriate authority to increase the number of seats in a branch of study or faculty over and above it’s annual permitted strength so that the number of seats, excluding those which are reserved not less than the number of such seats available for the academic sessions immediately preceding the commencement of the Act. The Central Government in consultation with the appropriate authority is empowered to grant such permission including extending reservation for Other Backward Classes as well. 25. The Central Educational Institutions, by virtue of Section 6 of the 2006 Act, are under an obligation to take all necessary steps to give effect to the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act for the purpose of reservation. The Schedule appended to the said Act also names the institutions of excellence that are excluded from the applicability of reservation under Section 4. The respondent-University is not excluded from the operation of the Act and also falls within the definition of a Central Educational Institution as defined therein. 26. The Schedule appended to the said Act also names the institutions of excellence that are excluded from the applicability of reservation under Section 4. The respondent-University is not excluded from the operation of the Act and also falls within the definition of a Central Educational Institution as defined therein. 26. The University issued an advertisement for admission that was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3569 (MS) of 2009 contending that since there is no mention of giving reservation benefit to the Other Backward Category of candidates to the extent of 27%, the provisions of Section 3 of the 2006 Act should be enforced upon which the Court passed an interim order on 8.7.2009 directing the University to proceed with the admissions but to reserve six seats for the six individual petitioners therein that were directed not to be filled up except with the leave of the Court. 27. Then came the challenge raised to the Constitution 93rd Amendment Act, 2005 and the 2006 Act (Act No. 5 of 2007) before the Supreme Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and others, 2008 (6) SCC 1 . The order of the Court in the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision is summarized in paragraphs 688 to 672 which is extracted hereunder : “668. The Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 is valid and does not violate the “basic structure” of the Constitution so far as it relates to the State-maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. Question whether the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as “private unaided” educational institutions are concerned, is not considered and left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Bhandari, J. in his opinion, has, however, considered the issue and has held that the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 is not constitutionally valid so far as private unaided educational institutions are concerned. 669. Act 5 of 2007 is constitutionally valid subject to the definition of “Other Backward Classes” in Section 2 (g) of Act 5 of 2007 being clarified as follows: If the determination of “Other Backward Classes” by the Central Government is with reference to a caste, it shall exclude the “ creamy layer” among such caste. 670. Quantum of reservation of 27% of seats to Other Backward Classes in the educational institutions provided in the Act is not illegal. 671. 670. Quantum of reservation of 27% of seats to Other Backward Classes in the educational institutions provided in the Act is not illegal. 671. Act 5 of 2007 is not invalid for the reason that there is no time-limit prescribed for its operation but majority of the Judges are of the view that the review should be made as to the need for continuance of reservation at the end of 5 years. 672. The writ petitions are disposed of in the light of majority judgment. However, in Contempt Petition No. 112 of 2007 in WP (C) No. 265 of 2006, no orders are required.” 28. The constitutional validity of the 93rd Amendment and 2006 Act (Act No. 5 of 2007) having been upheld in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court by a constitution bench therefore paved the way for reservation to be provided to the socially and educationally Backward Classes to seek admission by way of reservation. 29. The respondent-University does not appear to have made any provision for the Other Backward Category candidates and it continued with 50% reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe students. The petitioners have categorically asserted that the respondent-University never implemented the reservation as per Section 3 of the 2006 Act to which no denial has been made by the University. The implementation of the 2006 Act was however being reviewed particularly in the North-Eastern States where the reservation was required more for the Scheduled Tribes as Other Backward Category candidates were not available against State seats. 30. The respondent-University also appears to be resisting such reservation in favour of Other Backward Category candidates on account of it’s existing reservation of 50% for SC’s and ST’s. A Bill was mooted in Parliament in the year 2010 captioned as Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Bill, 2010 proposing to introduce certain changes in the definition clause particularly with regard to the North-Eastern Region but mainly the insertion of two provisos in Section 3 of the Principal Act. The aforesaid Bill was introduced by the then Minister of Human Resource Development Sri Kapil Sibal that has been placed before the Court by Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel who has appeared on behalf of the intervenors, namely, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe students whose reservation of 50% is protected for admission in the respondent-University. The aforesaid Bill was introduced by the then Minister of Human Resource Development Sri Kapil Sibal that has been placed before the Court by Sri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel who has appeared on behalf of the intervenors, namely, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe students whose reservation of 50% is protected for admission in the respondent-University. The compilation provided by Sri Kalia includes the deliberations of the Standing Committee of the Parliament after the introduction of the said Bill that has been described as the 234th report. The preface of the said Report introduced by the Chairman of the Standing Committee is extracted hereunder : “PREFACE I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, having been authorized by the Committee, present this Two Hundred and Thirty Fourth Report of the Committee on the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Bill, 2010*. 2. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 6 August, 2010. In pursuance of Rule 270 relating to Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee, the Chairman, Rajya Sabha referred** the Bill to the Committee on 10 August, 2010 for examination and report. 3. The Committee considered the Bill in two sittings held on 10 December, 2010 and 14th February, 2011. 4. On 10 December, 2010, the Committee heard the Secretary, Department of Higher Education on various provisions of the Bill. 5. The Committee, while drafting the Report, relied on the following : (i) Background Note on the Bill and Note on the clauses of the Bill received from the Department of Higher Education. (ii) Presentation made and clarifications given by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education; and (iii) Feedback received from the Department on the questionnaire and the issues raised by the Members during the course of the oral evidence of the Secretary. 6. The Committee considered the Draft Report on the Bill and adopted the same in its meeting held on 14th February, 2011. 7. For facility of reference, observations and recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters at the end of the Report. NEW DELHI; Oscar Fernandes  Chairman, FEBRUARY 14, 2011 Department-related Parliamentary MAGHA 11, 1932 (Saka) Standing Committee on Human Resource Department (ii) * Published in Gazettee of India Extraordinary Part II Section 2 dated the 6th August, 2010. 7. For facility of reference, observations and recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters at the end of the Report. NEW DELHI; Oscar Fernandes  Chairman, FEBRUARY 14, 2011 Department-related Parliamentary MAGHA 11, 1932 (Saka) Standing Committee on Human Resource Department (ii) * Published in Gazettee of India Extraordinary Part II Section 2 dated the 6th August, 2010. ** Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Bulletin Part II No. 47556 dated the 10th Au 31. What is more important to be noted is the statement of the objects and reasons that were appended to the said amendment Bill. The same is extracted in clause 1.3 of the said report which is reproduced hereunder : “1.3 Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill states as follows: “Some of the Central Educational Institutions, particularly those situated in the North-Eastern States including Sikkim (but excluding the non-tribal areas of Assam) inhabited significantly, and in some cases predominantly by tribal population and Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, which have been reserving fifty percent seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in keeping with the objects specified in the Act establishing that University, have been showing their inability to reduce the extent of reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes prevailing therein, in order to give way for reservation of twenty-seven per cent of seats for the Other Backward Classes as stipulated under the Act. Further, the existing provisions of the Act exempt the Central Educational Institutions situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution from reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, if any. But this was not intended while enacting the aforesaid Act, except in case of Minority Educational Institutions which are exempt in terms of clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution. Moreover, some of the Central Educational Institutions have been finding it difficult to adhere to the time-limit of three years for creation of the requisite physical and academic infrastructure owing to various reasons beyond their control. In order to remove the aforesaid practical difficulties being faced by the various Central Educational Institutions in giving effect to the provisions of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, it has become necessary to amend certain provisions of the Act. In order to remove the aforesaid practical difficulties being faced by the various Central Educational Institutions in giving effect to the provisions of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, it has become necessary to amend certain provisions of the Act. It is also proposed to clarify that implementation of the Act has, in fact taken effect from the calendar year 2008 and not from the year 2007 as specified in Section 6 of the Act.” 32. The Committee in it’s report then went on put on record the practical difficulties summarized by the Department of Higher Education in clause 1.4 wherein a particular reference was made to the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University as follows : “1.4 The Department of Higher Education in their Background Note on the Bill summarized the practical difficulties experienced by some of the CEIs in giving effect to the provisions of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 as under : (i) Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (BBAU), Lucknow established as an institution intended to pay special attention to the promotion of educational and economic interests and welfare of the members belonging to the SCs and STs, has been providing 50 per cent reservations for the SCs/STs. Provision for reservation of 27 percent seats for the OBCs over and above the existing 50 per cent limit for SCs and STs the total reserved seats would exceed the 50 per cent limit stipulated by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case.” The same was elaborated in clauses 1.5 and 1.6 that are extracted hereunder: “1.5 The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, during her presentation before the Committee, dwelt upon the practical difficulties being experienced by different Central Educational Institutions during the last three years in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, especially with regard to 50 per cent ceiling and existing demographic patterns in the North-East States. It was stated that Babasaheb Himrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow already has 50 per cent reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and institutions in the North-East States viz. It was stated that Babasaheb Himrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow already has 50 per cent reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and institutions in the North-East States viz. Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland predominantly inhabited by the tribal population, were already providing higher percentage of reservation for Scheduled Tribes, the provision for 27 per cent OBC reservation would be breaching the ceiling of 50 per cent reservation as laid down under the Supreme Court directive providing for 27 per cent OBC reservation by lowering the existing reservation in the University would prove to be detrimental to its character as visualized in its Statute. Another significant anomaly noticed was in respect of Sixth Schedule States where 50 per cent ceiling of reservation had already been reached and OBC reservation would lead to complications. North-East States having a predominantly Scheduled Tribe population needed separate dispensation for the OBC reservation. The Committee was also given to understand that time-limit of three years for the implementation of the Act had proved to be insufficient inspite of Oversight Committees working in coordination with UGC and AICTE. Attention of the Committee was also drawn to special problem areas experienced in respect of Central Educational Institutions in Delhi due to permission required from different agencies for building up the required infrastructure. 1.6 On a specific query with regard to general experience in the implementation of the Act so far, it was informed that before the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 came into force, reservation in admission in Central Educational Institutions was confined to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only through executive orders and provision of the respective Statements or Rules governing the institution. Following the amendment to Article 15 of the Constitution (93rd amendment Act), provision was made for the first time, through the CEI Act, 2006, for reservation in favour of OBC’s as well as the SCs and STs. Following the amendment to Article 15 of the Constitution (93rd amendment Act), provision was made for the first time, through the CEI Act, 2006, for reservation in favour of OBC’s as well as the SCs and STs. After the Act came into operation, reservation for SC/ST/OBC students in admission in Central Educational Institutions has been accomplished to a great extent and the candidates from the aforesaid categories were able to get admitted in these institutions in much larger number, nor only due to the percentage of seats reserved but also due to increase in the absolute number of seats.” The said Committee in relation to the introduction of the provisos in the Bill which have now taken shape of the 2012 Act noted the following in clauses 3.4 and 3.4 that are extracted hereunder : “3.4 The Committee takes note of the following clarifications given by the Department for bringing the proposed amendment in Section 3 : (i) State Seats, if any, in a Central Educational Institution (CEI) situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution shall be governed by the reservation policy of the concerned State Government in the matter of admission of SCs, STs and OBCs to that CEI. (ii) In a CEI with no State seats, if the seats reserved for the SCs exceed 15 per cent or the seats reserved for the STs exceed 7.5 per cent or the seats reserved for the SCs and the STs taken together in a CEI exceed 22.5 per cent but fall short of 50 per cent of the annual permitted strength, the percentage of seats reserved for the OBCs shall be restricted to such shortfall. (iii) In a CEI with no State Seats, if the seats reserved for SCs or the STs or both taken together in a CEI exceed 50 per cent of the annual permitted strength, that CEI shall be exempt from making any reservation for the OBCs. (iii) In a CEI with no State Seats, if the seats reserved for SCs or the STs or both taken together in a CEI exceed 50 per cent of the annual permitted strength, that CEI shall be exempt from making any reservation for the OBCs. Further, if such a CEI is situated in the north-eastern States, including Sikkim but excluding the non-tribal areas of Assam, the percentage of seats reserved for the SCs or the STs shall not be reduced from the level obtaining on the date immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the Act; while in case of a CEI situated in other areas the percentage of seats reserved for the SCs and STs in that CEI shall stand reduced to 50 per cent. 3.5 While the Committee is convinced with the proposed amendment in Section 3, it would like to point out that there are conceptual difficulties in determining the OBC reservation in the States. While the SC/ST reservation may be definite, it is the OBC reservation which may differ from State to State. The Committee is also aware of the fact that reconciliation has to be made between 50 per cent cap on reservation and 27 per cent OBC quota. The Committee is of the view that OBC percentage is to be decided by taking SC and ST reservation as a compulsory component. Since the extent of reservation is 50 per cent whatever remaining after fulfilling the SC/ST reservation may go to OBCs.” During consultations in relation to Section 3, the following observations were made by the Committee that are extracted hereunder : “Clause 3: Section 3: Reservation of seats in Central Educational Institutions With the Committee is convinced with the proposed amendment in Section 3, it would like to point out that there are conceptual difficulties in determining the OBC reservation in the States. While the SC/ST reservation may be definite, it is the OBC reservation which may differ from State to State. The Committee is also aware of the fact that reconciliation has to be made between 50 per cent cap on reservation and 27 per cent OBC quota. The Committee is of the view that OBC percentage is to be decided by taking SC and ST reservation as a compulsory component. Since the extent of reservation is 50 per cent whatever remaining after fulfilling the SC/ST reservation may go to OBCs. The Committee is of the view that OBC percentage is to be decided by taking SC and ST reservation as a compulsory component. Since the extent of reservation is 50 per cent whatever remaining after fulfilling the SC/ST reservation may go to OBCs. (Para 3.5) Regarding adhering to the limit of 50 per cent reservation, the Committee would like to point out the case of Tamil Nadu, where 69 per cent reservation to backward classes has been allowed by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has permitted the State to increase the 50 per cent limit in case the qualification of data about OBC in the State as determined by the State Backward Class Commission justified such increase. In the light of the above Committee feels that the Department may take a view in the context of those States where data is available. (Para 3.6)” 33. When the Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha, the debates therein, copies whereof have also been provided to us, indicate that the then Minister of Human Resource Development, Government of India, Sri Kapil Sibal stated as follows : “Then, with reference to Dr. Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University in Uttar Pradesh, it was established, as you know, much prior to the coming into force of this Act and there the reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes itself is 50 per cent. So, then it was not possible for us to give any reservation to the OBCs there. So, because of historical reasons, those anomalies had to be corrected. So, the essence of his amendment is to correct those anomalies to preserve the reservation in States where reservations have been given much beyond the stipulated percentage in terms of the Constitution for institutions that have been set up prior to the coming into force of this Act, where reservations are granted to a particular category that reservation must be preserved. This, of course, applies to very few institutions. In rest of the institutions, all the policies required under the Act has been implemented.” 34. During the said debate, the Minister again reiterated the following words : “If we have had a University, which is giving 50 percent reservation of seats to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar University, let that be protected. In rest of the institutions, all the policies required under the Act has been implemented.” 34. During the said debate, the Minister again reiterated the following words : “If we have had a University, which is giving 50 percent reservation of seats to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar University, let that be protected. Let not those, who are vested with certain rights through statute or otherwise be deprived of those rights. That is the heart of this legislation. So, it is consistent with the original intent of the original Act of 2006.” When the Bill reached the Rajya Sabha, the Hon’ble Minister made a special reference to the respondent-University as follows : “Then with reference to the Ambedkar University, which is a particular university only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Uttar Pradesh, the statute provided a reservation of 50 per cent only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. So, there was no occasion for OBC reservation there. So, we had to propose an amendment that is reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Ambedkar University must maintained. ... ... ... ... ... Therefore, we needed to bring an amendment to ensure that whatever reservations were applicable to those State institutions, which later became Central Institutions, whatever reservations were available immediately before they became Central Institutions, would still be intact and those would not be disturbed. That is mother amendment which is for the consideration of the hon. Members of this House. ... ... ... ... ... Then with reference to the Ambedkar University, which is a particular university only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Uttar Pradesh, the statute provided a reservation of 50 per cent only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. So, there was no occasion for OBC reservation there. So, we had to propose an amendment that is reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Ambedkar University must be maintained.” 35. Thus, before the Rajya Sabha, the stand appears to have been taken as if the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University was only for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates as is evident from the statement made by the Minister concerned. Thus, before the Rajya Sabha, the stand appears to have been taken as if the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University was only for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates as is evident from the statement made by the Minister concerned. It is thus clear that the 2012 amending Act was brought about to give protection to the universities in the North-Eastern States and in particular to the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow which was probably the only university the fact whereof was being discussed separately before both the Houses of Parliament and was also a subject-matter of assessment by the Standing Committee of the Parliament. 36. We have heard Sri Amit Bose at length on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajesh Tiwari for the respondent-University. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Alok Mathur advanced his arguments on behalf of the Central Government and Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel introduced his arguments on behalf of the intervenors, namely, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. 37. Sri Amit Bose contends that reservation of 50% in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is contrary to Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India and the action of the University in proceeding to issue advertisements therefore violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well. He then submits that the right to 27% reservation in favour of Other Backward Castes has been conferred by Section 3 of the 2006 Act which is in conformity with Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India hence Clause 9 of Chapter VII of the First Academic Ordinances of the University violates Section 3 of the 2006 Act. He submits that Section 3 substantively contains 27% reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes in matters of any Central Educational Institutions which provision has neither been repealed nor eliminated by the Parliament. Thus, to deny the said benefit is a violation of Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. 38. He then submits that the 2012 amendment Act which inserts the provisos will not apply to the respondent-University as it was clearly tailored to cater to the requirement of North-Eastern States where there is excessive reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes and there are no Other Backward Classes in such States. 38. He then submits that the 2012 amendment Act which inserts the provisos will not apply to the respondent-University as it was clearly tailored to cater to the requirement of North-Eastern States where there is excessive reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes and there are no Other Backward Classes in such States. The object and intent of the 2012 Act does not amount to denial of benefits of reservation to the Other Backward Classes who will enjoy reservation in admission throughout the country as such there was no valid reason to deny this benefit in a discriminatory manner for admission in the respondent-University. 39. He also submits that the objects and reasons of the 1994 Act which has established the University does not indicate that it was an University exclusively for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The same only asserts that while providing a certain percentage or quota to reservation in favour of socially and educationally backward classes, the benefits in favour of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe shall be taken care of in particular. This therefore has now to be read in the light of Section 3 (3) of the 2006 Act as well as the definition of the Central Educational Institutions as extracted here-in-above which does not exclude the applicability of the Act to the respondent-University. He submits that the respondent-University even though may have been established in 1994, that is prior to the 2006 Act, yet by virtue of the definition of Central Educational Institutions as contained in Section 2 (d) of the 2006 Act, the University is bound to implement the reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes as well who are also defined in the 2006 Act under Section 2 (g) extracted here-in-above. Thus, merely because the University was established in 1994 through a special Act, the same does not become a University of any extraordinary status so as to exclude itself from providing reservation to Other Backward Classes as imposed under the 2006 Act. If this interpretation of exclusion as urged by the respondents is accepted, then this would result in discrimination and would violate Articles 14 and 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. 40. If this interpretation of exclusion as urged by the respondents is accepted, then this would result in discrimination and would violate Articles 14 and 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. 40. He submits that negation of rights already conferred under the Statute and also constitutionally protected cannot be taken away under the garb of the provisos to Section 3 of the 2006 Act, inasmuch as this would amount to taking away by the right hand given by the left. He therefore submits that this Court should interpret the provisos to be not applicable in the respondent-University which otherwise also talk about less than 50% and more than 50%, but not of 50%. 41. He contends that the enactment is a denial of rights of reservation for admission in Educational Institutions which is not only violative of part III but also the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Other Backward Classes are also oppressed classes who still require the opportunity of higher education for their upliftment and advancement and therefore to give a particular status to a university which is entirely funded by the Central Government and the University Grants Commission would amount to denial of opportunity to those who are otherwise entitled to, and are being extended the benefit of reservation in all other Universities throughout the country under the 2006 Act. He therefore submits that the two provisos of Section 3 which have been inserted should be read in a manner so as not to deprive reservation benefits to the aspirants of Other Backward Classes for admission in the respondent-University. 42. Sri Bose has relied on several judgments to contend that the principles of statutory interpretation as spelt out in the following decisions should be taken into consideration for the said purpose : (i) J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170 ; (ii) Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. Sri Bose has relied on several judgments to contend that the principles of statutory interpretation as spelt out in the following decisions should be taken into consideration for the said purpose : (i) J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170 ; (ii) Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) (P) Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 90 ; (iii) Pradip Port Trust v. Workmen, (1977) 2 SCC 339 ; (iv) U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain, (1978) 4 SCC 16 ; (v) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315 ; (vi) Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406 ; (vii) R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335 ; (viii) Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial & Investment Corporation of Maharashtra, (1993) 2 SCC 144 ; (ix) S. Prakash v. K.M. Kurian, (1999) 5 SCC 624 ; (x) Talcher Municipality v. Talcher Regulated Market Committee, (2004) 6 SCC 178 ; (xi) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. P. Kesvan, (2004) 9 SCC 772 ; (xii) Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank v. Additional Labour Commissioner, (2007) 11 SCC 756 ; (xiii) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investiation, (2008) 3 SC 674; (xiv) P. Raghava Kurup v. V. Annathakumari, (2007) 9 SCC 179 ; (xv) Tata Motors Ltd. v. Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd., (2008) 7 SCC 619 ; (xvi) Commercial Tax Officer v. Binani Cements Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 319 ; (xvii) Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 498 ; (xviii) Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 ; (xix) Mary Seward v. The Owner of the ‘Vera Cruz’, (1884) LR 10 AC 59 (HL); (xx) Barker v. Edger, (1898) AC 748. 43. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Alok Mathur has urged that there is a presumption of constitutionality of any enactment and the Court should endeavour to uphold it and would not look into the reasonableness of the Statute. He submits that the respondent-University has a special status as it was established to cater to the needs of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in particular. He submits that the respondent-University has a special status as it was established to cater to the needs of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in particular. The 2006 Act with the introduction of Section 3 did bring about a change in the quota of reservation by introducing a separate quota for backwards and it is for realigning the same that the Parliament undertook the exercise of amending the Act in 2012. He contends that the petitioners did not have any fundamental right of reservation and Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision giving liberty to the Legislature to make special provisions for reservation. The 2012 Act therefore being inconformity with the same cannot be criticized as being in violation of any of the provisions of the Part-III of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioners have already given up the stand of questioning the vires of the 2012 Act and therefore, as per the literal interpretation of the amending Act the same has to be understood as it stands. The Parliament had the legislative competence and in matters of admission to Educational Institutions, the Parliament has the power to modulate the extent of reservation or to restrict the scope of the application of the rights conferred by it. The amendment in 2012 therefore clearly conforms to the aforesaid principles and which is also evident from the debates of the Parliament as well as the statement of objects and reasons for introducing the amendment. Thus, the same cannot be described as arbitrary and the wisdom of the legislative choice cannot be questioned. He further submits that as a matter of fact, there is no complete prohibition or denial of reservation to the Other Backward Classes which is evident on a literal interpretation of the provisos appended to Section 3. 44. Thus, the same cannot be described as arbitrary and the wisdom of the legislative choice cannot be questioned. He further submits that as a matter of fact, there is no complete prohibition or denial of reservation to the Other Backward Classes which is evident on a literal interpretation of the provisos appended to Section 3. 44. The literal meaning of the provisos clearly indicate that where in any Central Educational Institution the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe exceeds the reservation provided in Sub-Section (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of their sum taken together exceed the sum of percentages under (i) and (ii), then as per proviso (a) only those seats would be reserved for Other Backward Classes which falls short of 50% of the reservation provided to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and proviso (b) states that where the reservation provided to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes exceeds 50% prior to commencement of the 2006 Act, then no seats would be reserved for Other Backward Classes. His contention is that there is no ambiguity so as to give a different interpretation. 45. He has relied on several decisions to substantiate his submissions further contending that the provisos which have been introduced being an exception to the main Section can independently exist as the functioning of the provisos are to limit the main part of the Section and to provide something, which but for the provisos would not have been within the operative part. The judgments relied on by Sri Ashok Mehta are as under : (i) Ajit Singh (III) v. State of Punjab, (2000) 1 SCC 430 ; (ii) Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 ; (iii) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; (iv) M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, 1963 Supp (I) SCR 439; (v) Namit Sharma v. Union of India, 2013 (1) SCC 745 ; (vi) Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, 1967 (1) SCR 15; (vii) Raja Bala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 2 SCC 456; (viii) Keshavji Ravji and Co. etc. Pvt. Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, 1967 (1) SCR 15; (vii) Raja Bala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 2 SCC 456; (viii) Keshavji Ravji and Co. etc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1990 (2) SCC 231 ; (ix) Prakash and others v. Phulavati and others, 2016 (2) SCC 36 ; (x) S. Sundaram Pallai v. V.R. Pattabhiraman, 1985 (1) SCC 591 ; (xi) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1999 (7) SCC 76 ; (xii) U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain, 1978 (4) SCC 16 . 46. Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University has invited the attention of the Court to the entire material relating to parliamentary debates, the deliberations of the Standing Committee of the Parliament and the objects and reasons to contend that firstly, the University was established under a special Act, namely, the 1994 Act. The said Act clearly provided for special reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and accordingly, the First Academic Ordinances provide for 50% reservation to such classes. He therefore submits that this stood protected and could not be abrogated by the general provisions of the 2006 Act. His contention is that the 1994 special Act continues to hold the field and any exercise of framing of Ordinances under the said Act that provides for 50% reservation could not have been taken away for which the amendment in the 2012 Act came to be introduced. He submits that the respondent-University being a special university meant to uplift the cause of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in particular is fully justified in providing 50% reservation which stands protected under Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. He submits that even if the validity of the 2006 Act has been upheld the same does not abrogate the provisions of the 1994 Act that can still exist independently and which now stands even otherwise protected with the 2012 amending Act. He contends that the petitioners having not challenged the competence of the Parliament or prayed for declaring the said provisos as ultra vires to Part-III of the Constitution of India, the wisdom of the legislature in introducing the statutory limitations cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He contends that the petitioners having not challenged the competence of the Parliament or prayed for declaring the said provisos as ultra vires to Part-III of the Constitution of India, the wisdom of the legislature in introducing the statutory limitations cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the provisos simply preserve and contain what was provided under the 1994 parent Act of the University and hence all the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be rejected. He has also questioned the locus standi of the petitioners on the ground that reservation is not a fundamental right and no such rights can be enforced by the petitioners. He then submits that the University Ordinances were also laid before the Parliament and there is a presumption of the validity of the 50% reservation provided for in the Ordinances. On the issue of interpretation, he submits that the provisos, if literally as they stand, carve out an exception which does not in any way violate either the main clause of Section 3 being an exception to the same and once having been included, the wisdom of the Parliament or the reasonableness thereof cannot be questioned by the petitioners. He submits that the purpose of a proviso is to make a provision which but for the proviso would not be in the main Section and the same can also simultaneously stand with the main Section. There is a presumption against implied repeal as such the 2006 Act does not override the 1994 Act, which is a special Act. He submits that the purpose of a proviso is to make a provision which but for the proviso would not be in the main Section and the same can also simultaneously stand with the main Section. There is a presumption against implied repeal as such the 2006 Act does not override the 1994 Act, which is a special Act. He has relied on the following judgments to substantiate his submissions : (i) State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 AIR SCW 1029; (ii) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Rohan Kumar, Haji Basher Ahmed, 1976 (1) SCC 671 ; (iii) Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 11 SCC 741 Paras 11, 17, 18 and 19] (iv) Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha, AIR 1961 SC 1596 Paras 9 and 10] (v) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras v. Ramkishan, Shri Kishan Jhaver etc., AIR 1968 SC 59 Paras 8, 10, 11 and 15] (vi) Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, [ 2008 (6) SCC 1 Pages 316, 318 and 323] (vii) Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [ 1985 (2) SCC 197 Page 225] 47. Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel for the intervenors contends that the amending Act of 2012 does not in any way affect the status of the respondent-University or the reservation to the extent of 50% provided by it under the 1994 Act which is a special Act. He submits that this special Act would exist and any action taken thereunder cannot be questioned on the ground of any provision being made later on through another act of Parliament. There is neither any repeal nor a presumption of implied repeal. The First Ordinances of the University have the status of law and have come to form part of the Statute itself. The 1994 Act being a special law would override the general provisions of the 2006 Act as amended in 2012. The statement of objects and reasons as well as the legislative debates leave no room for doubt that the 2012 amending Act clearly intends to preserve the status of the University and also the extent of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as was existing prior to the 2006 Act. The statement of objects and reasons as well as the legislative debates leave no room for doubt that the 2012 amending Act clearly intends to preserve the status of the University and also the extent of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as was existing prior to the 2006 Act. He submits that the 2006 Act cannot be read so as to impliedly repeal the reservation which the University was empowered to make under the 1994 Act and it’s Ordinances to the extent of 50%. There is a strong presumption against implied repeal. He therefore submits that once there is no challenge raised to the vires of the provisos and the prayer for striking it down having been given up, then nothing remains to be considered either on the test of reasonableness or questioning the wisdom of the legislature. He therefore contends that the challenge raised is therefore to be dismissed. He has relied on the following judgments to substantiate his submissions : (i) Municipal Council Palai through the Commissioner of Municipal, Palai v. T.J. Joseph and others, AIR 1963 SC 1561 ; (ii) Tansukh Rai Jain v. Nilratan Prasad Shaw and others, AIR 1966 SC 1780 ; (iii) Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1967 SC 1581 ; (iv) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker, 1971 (1) SCC 442 ; (v) Ratan Lal Adukla v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 537 ; (vi) Union of India and another v. Venkateshan S. and another, (2002) 5 SCC 285 ; (vii) State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor ltd. and others, (2003) 7 SCC 389 ; (viii) P. Rajan Sandhi v. Union of India and another, (2010) 10 SCC 338 ; (ix) J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. and others, (2003) 7 SCC 389 ; (viii) P. Rajan Sandhi v. Union of India and another, (2010) 10 SCC 338 ; (ix) J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1961 SC 1170 ; (x) General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and another, (2009) 8 SCC 481 ; (xi) Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, (1995) 2 SCC 479 ; (xii) Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Orissa and others, (1987) 3 SCC 279; (xiii) M/s Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (1988) 2 SCC 299 ; (xiv) State of U.P. and another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 10 ; (xv) Anoop Mishra v. State of U.P. and another, Writ-A No. 28565 of 2012 48. We have considered all the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and we may at the very outset clarify that the issue raised in these petitions is clearly confined to the dispute of 50% reservation provided by the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes to the exclusion of Other Backward Classes. This is evident from the fact that the case of the respondent-University was exclusively discussed and dealt with in the proceedings prior to the Act being passed by the Parliament both in the respective Committees as well as in both the Houses of Parliament. The cause of the respondent-University had been individually represented pointing out that this was the only Central University established in the State of U.P. for the purpose of catering particularly to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and therefore, the reservation as introduced by the 2006 Act under Section 3 thereof should not diminish the percentage of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe reservation which according to the University would run counter to the objects and reasons of the 1994 Act under which the University was established. 49. Consequently, we are proceeding to interpret the provisions on the facts of the present case and confine our judgment to that extent only. 50. 49. Consequently, we are proceeding to interpret the provisions on the facts of the present case and confine our judgment to that extent only. 50. The argument of the respondent that the 1994 Act is an independent Act is correct, inasmuch as the said Act was passed to establish a University that was open to all castes and creed but at the same time, the objects and reasons for establishment of the said University clearly indicate that it was for the special attention for promoting educational advancement of the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes aspiring to receive higher education. To that effect, the objects also categorically provide that this should be achieved by providing adequate percentage of seats to such category. Accordingly, the Act itself empowered the University under Section 2 (xxi) to fix the quota of percentage of such reservation. To achieve this object, the University in it’s First Academic Ordinances introduced Clause 9 making a provision for 50% reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The said percentage of reservation continued in the respondent-University and can be termed to be protected in view of the empowerment as conferred under the 1994 Act itself. 51. The matter took a turn when the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005 was enforced w.e.f. 21.1.2006 whereby Sub-Article (5) was added in Article 15 enabling the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes particularly with regard to the admission in Educational Institutions other than minority institutions. 52. The Parliament under the aforesaid enabling constitutional authority passed another Act, namely, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. It is to be noted that this Act was specifically for reservation in admissions in Central Educational Institutions. Section 2 (d) of the Act includes within it’s fold Central Educational Institutions including any University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act. It is here that we proceed to record that the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University has been established under a Central Act of 1994 and therefore it squarely stands covered by the provisions of the 2006 Act. It is here that we proceed to record that the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University has been established under a Central Act of 1994 and therefore it squarely stands covered by the provisions of the 2006 Act. The argument of the respondents is, that the 1994 Act being a Special Act and an independent Act of Parliament, continues to hold the field, and the enforcement of the 2006 Act not having repealed the said Act, there would be a clear presumption against any implied repeal. 53. We are unable to agree with this proposition, inasmuch as the subject-matter of legislation admittedly is within the competence of Parliament and therefore, the 2006 Act will be presumed to have been passed to give effect to the reservations as entailed therein. Not only this, there is an obligation cast on all Central Educational Institutions under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the 2006 Act to give effect to the reservation as provided under Section 3 thereof. The field of reservation and it’s percentage therefore having been categorically re-defined for all Central Educational Institutions alike, would therefore impliedly repeal any existing provision on the date of the enforcement of the 2006 Act. It is correct that there is a presumption against implied repeal but the said presumption clearly stands rebutted in the present case, inasmuch as the Parliament did not draw any distinction between the Universities established or incorporated under a Central Act. It includes all Universities established under a Central Act and therefore, the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University being a Central University under the 1994 Act was clearly covered under the aforesaid definition. 54. The second reason to not accept the arguments of the respondents on this score is that the 2006 Act is a Special Act for reservation that came into effect under a constitutionally enabling provision of Article 15 (5) which was not in existence when the 1994 Act had been passed. The Parliament thus was empowered by the Constitution to bring about the change by way of providing proportionate reservation in relation specifically to admission in Educational Institutions. This becomes more specific with the words Socially Educationally Backward Classes of citizens being categorically used in Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the State was enabled to make special provisions relating to reservation in admission in Educational Institutions for Other Backward Classes as well. This becomes more specific with the words Socially Educationally Backward Classes of citizens being categorically used in Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the State was enabled to make special provisions relating to reservation in admission in Educational Institutions for Other Backward Classes as well. This was therefore a constitutional goal envisaged in Part III of the Constitution of India that was sought to be enforced through the 2006 Act. This introduction of reservation for Other Backward Classes being made constitutionally permissible was consciously engrafted in Section 3 of the 2006 Act. This legislation will therefore have an overriding effect over the First Academic Ordinances of the respondent-University where 50% reservation was confined for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. It is to be remembered that the 1994 Act itself does not fix any percentage and only empowered the University to fix the quota. The University by way of subordinate legislation in the shape of First Academic Ordinances had introduced 50% reservation. Thus, the quantitative fixation of quota was not under the primary Act of 1994, but under a subordinate legislation through the First Academic Ordinances that was notified in the Gazette in the year 2004, even though it had been dispatched earlier in 1996. The first ordinances may have been tabled before the Parliament and were having the status of law, but once a Special Central Act specifically for reservation in admission to all Central Educational Institutions as defined came to be enforced, the 50% quota under the Ordinances of the University stood superseded by the quota prescribed in Section 3 of the 2006 Act. The 2006 Act would be presumed to have been consciously passed enabled by Article 15 (5) that was not there when the 1994 Act came into existence. 55. The third reason is that the validity of the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005 came to be challenged in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur (supra). The Apex Court upheld the validity of the Act including reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes as contained in Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India in the State Maintained Institutions and aided Educational Institutions. The challenge raised to the 2006 Act (Act No. 5 of 2007) was also upheld and thus, reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes was constitutionally recognized by a judicial pronouncement. The challenge raised to the 2006 Act (Act No. 5 of 2007) was also upheld and thus, reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes was constitutionally recognized by a judicial pronouncement. The same would be binding on the respondent-Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University as a matter of declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the 2006 Act would prevail over and above the percentage of reservation as contained in the First Academic Ordinances of the University. 56. Fourthly, it will not be incorrect to reiterate that the 2006 Act under Sections 3, 4 and 5 has been clearly designed to enforce the quota of reservation as defined under Section 3. This being an act of Parliament with specific powers of enforcement of reservation in admission would therefore even otherwise prevail over the First Academic Ordinances of the respondent-University, insofar as it fixes the quota of reservation. These being specific provisions would therefore govern and control the quota of reservation and hence, the respondents are not correct in submitting that the 1994 Act being special, the quota of 50% fixed for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes under the Ordinances will still continue to prevail in matters of reservation in admissions. 57. It is here, we may record that Sri Amit Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioners is correct in his submissions of the prevalence of the 2006 Act over the 1994 Act. It will also have to be noticed that Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, instead of advancing the argument that the 1994 Act is a Special Act, contributed to the submissions by modifying it to the effect that the status of the University is a special status, and in view of the special status of the University to cater to particularly the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, justifies the amendments brought about through the 2012 amendment Act. 58. 58. The argument of Sri Ashok Mehta for the Union of India that the University enjoys a special status cannot be doubted as per the objects and reasons disclosed at the time of the establishment of the University but merely because it had a special status, the University could not have acted contrary to an act of Parliament specially enacted for reservation in admission in relation to the quota prescribed for other backward classes and the validity whereof is no longer questionable in terms of the judgment in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur (supra). The introduction of percentage of reservation of 27% to Other Backward Classes having been introduced under the enabling powers of Article 15 (5) cannot be negated through Ordinances framed by the University that was allowed to prevail even after the 2006 Act came into force. This would amount to placing a subordinate legislation on a higher pedestal than the 2006 Act which would not be permissible in the hierarchy of legislations. Needless to repeat that the percentage was not prescribed in the 1994 Act at all. The 1994 Act does not also say that admissions would be denied to other classes of people. To the contrary, it is a University open to all castes and creed. The 2006 Act would therefore be presumed to have been enacted with all this in the background and not in ignorance thereof. The quota as fixed by the First Academic Ordinances of the University therefore stood eclipsed to the extent as defined under Section 3 of the 2006 Act prior to the 2012 amendment. 59. There is yet another argument which has been advanced by the respondents contending that the Other Backward Classes have no fundamental right to claim reservation. It is either way, not the fundamental right of any class, to claim reservation in admission as a fundamental right. Reservation for admission is enabled by either a constitutional or a statutory provision. Once this argument is accepted, then if the State has the power to reserve, it also has the right to withdraw such reservation or modify it as per the need of the Society at large. 60. Reservation for admission is enabled by either a constitutional or a statutory provision. Once this argument is accepted, then if the State has the power to reserve, it also has the right to withdraw such reservation or modify it as per the need of the Society at large. 60. In the instant case, if the 2006 Act was brought into force to cater to reservation to other classes apart from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes that is constitutionally protected under Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the argument of the respondents cannot be countenanced. The 2006 Act, therefore, rightly proceeded to engraft the quota of percentage as contained in Section 3 of the 2006 Act. On this score as well, the argument of the respondents that the 1994 Act is a Special Act with special provisions cannot be held to have any overriding affect over the 2006 Act. 61. A natural corollary to this conclusion drawn by us is also supported by the fact that had this been not the impediment, there was no necessity of amending Section 3 through the provisos that have been introduced and are subject-matter of challenge before us. At this stage, we may now quote the provisos that came to be added by way of an amendment under Section that is the bone of contention between the parties. At this stage, we may now quote the provisos that came to be added by way of an amendment under Section that is the bone of contention between the parties. The said provisions as amended under the 2012 Act are extracted hereunder : “Provided that the State seats, if any, in a Central Educational Institution situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution shall be governed, by such reservation policy for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes, as may be specified, by notification in the Official Gazette, by the Government of the State where such institution is situated: Provided further that if there are no State seats in a Central Educational Institution and the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes exceed the percentage specified under clause (i) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes exceed the percentage specified under clause (ii) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes taken together exceed the sum of percentages specified under clauses (i) and (ii), but such seats are- (a) less than fifty per cent of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this Act, the total percentage of the seats required to be reserved for the Other Backward Classes under clause (iii) shall be restricted to the extent such sum of percentages specified under clauses (l) and (ii) falls short of fifty per cent of the annual permitted strength; (b) more than fifty per cent of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this Act, in that case no seat shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes under clause (iii) but the extent of the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall not be reduced in respect of Central Educational Institutions in the specified north-eastern region”. 62. The aforesaid provisos particularly the second proviso with clause (b) clearly nail down any scope for admission by way of a reservation to the Other Backward Classes. The exclusion in the second proviso was therefore clearly designed to cater to the peculiar situation of the status of the University keeping in mind the object of catering to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The aforesaid provisos particularly the second proviso with clause (b) clearly nail down any scope for admission by way of a reservation to the Other Backward Classes. The exclusion in the second proviso was therefore clearly designed to cater to the peculiar situation of the status of the University keeping in mind the object of catering to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Clause (a) to the second proviso does create a space for Other Backward Classes, but virtually restricts it by providing full play to the extent of 50% reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Thus, the Other Backward Classes can seek benefit of Section 3 only if there is a shortfall in the number of candidates seeking admission of the category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes against 50% reservation. 63. The percentage of reservation to other categories as provided for in the main Section is therefore clearly disturbed as it gives full reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the extent of 50%. It is for this reason that this 50% reservation as existed in the First Academic Ordinances in Clause 9 was challenged and is pending consideration in Writ Petition No. 3569 (MS) of 2009. The full play of 50% reservation to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes therefore does not harmonise with Section 3, which provides for reservation to Other Backward Classes as well. The question is, does it end in discrimination and arbitrariness. It is here that we have to mention that the petitioners have given up the challenge of the vires of the Sections as noted at the very outset. The issue of discrimination or arbitrariness has to be looked into from the point of view of the enabling power under Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India and the purpose underlying the same. There is a distinction which has to be kept in mind, namely, reservation in employment that has a different connotation as against reservation for opportunity of admission in educational institutions. The former is designed to secure the social and economic backwardness in matters of employment whereas the latter is the real upliftment of an individual of the oppressed classes so as to make him capable to compete in all spheres of life which may also include future employment. The former is designed to secure the social and economic backwardness in matters of employment whereas the latter is the real upliftment of an individual of the oppressed classes so as to make him capable to compete in all spheres of life which may also include future employment. Thus, to provide reservation in admission to the oppressed classes even, beyond a permissible percentage in the background of social circumstances cannot be said to be excessive or to prohibit this benefit to others. The same has to be balanced, more so when it comes to providing reservation in admission to educational institutions to competing oppressed classes, like in the present case, the Backwards v. The Scheduled Castes. The decisions which have been cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners do indicate that the Courts can intervene when excessiveness is detected in protective discrimination laws. In the instant case, the ratio of 50% is the outer limit of reservation and therefore, the reservation is not in excess of permissible limits. However, this is a peculiar situation, where in an inter se contest between the reserved classes, the other backward category is being denied the benefit of reservation as provided for in the main Section by virtually elbowing it through the aid of the provisos under challenge. 64. As noted above, since the vires challenge has been given up, the interpretation as sought for by Sri Amit Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioners would not be possible without entertaining arguments on the issue of striking down the impugned provisos. The other side of the coin is that the background of this 50% reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is clearly for the cause of the advancement and promotion of education. This purpose and cause has to be read in favour of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, but at the same time what we find is that such a cause or a purpose should be based on an extensive exercise to be undertaken by the authority extending the benefit of reservation through objective surveys and not merely on the social philosophy of Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. An exercise has to be undertaken in order to find out as to whether such reservation can be objectively sustained and at the same time, the reservation to the other categories of the oppressed classes can be justifiably denied. An exercise has to be undertaken in order to find out as to whether such reservation can be objectively sustained and at the same time, the reservation to the other categories of the oppressed classes can be justifiably denied. The Parliamentary debates or the discussions that have been placed before the Court are clearly aimed at maintaining 50% reservation on the strength of the purpose, objects and reasons for which the University was established. 65. The Parliament may have taken a myopic view by narrowing down the discussion for a single institution, and the statement of the Hon’ble Minister during the debates that the respondent University was established only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may not be matching with the object and reasons of the University which declares it to be open for admission to all creeds and classes, but the wisdom of the Parliament is not open to adjudication before this Court. It has also to be kept in mind that the 2006 Act widens the scope of admission through reservation throughout the country in all central educational institutions. Thus viewed from the top of the hill, and not standing in the valley, the reserved category aspirants are assured of more seats throughout the country. While assessing the need for reservation, the balance therefore from the point of view of centrally aided institutions, Section 3 without the impugned proviso can be successfully implemented. If that is feasible, it is still open for the Parliament to discuss and reassess the same on an objective study upon a survey of ground realities. With reservation in admissions with the aid of Article 15 (5) of the Constitution, and with a wider opportunity of exposure under Section 3 of the 2006 Act, any possible argument of discrimination and different standards of reservation inter se between the different reserved categories can be avoided by adopting a balanced approach. 66. We therefore find it necessary that if the Parliament has made a law, then should not an exercise be taken for an objective assessment of the requirement of the Other Backward Classes. To extend favour entirely to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and completely overlooking the claim of the Other Backward Classes therefore does require an objective assessment. 66. We therefore find it necessary that if the Parliament has made a law, then should not an exercise be taken for an objective assessment of the requirement of the Other Backward Classes. To extend favour entirely to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and completely overlooking the claim of the Other Backward Classes therefore does require an objective assessment. The presumption of legislative wisdom cannot be doubted, but unless the vires of the Act on such grounds is assailed with facts and figures to substantiate the same, this Court by way of an interpretation cannot read down the provisos to reflect a different meaning. To extend such a benefit would amount to enforcing Section 3 as against the provisos that have been subsequently added by way of an amendment. To our mind, the same would be permissible only if provisos can be struck down as ultra vires and not otherwise. The Parliament has full authority and is also otherwise obligated to review any percentage of reservation on such objective study, but we cannot issue any direction as prayed for unless the provisions are questioned accordingly as observed here-in-above. 67. The Other Backward Classes may be near equals and the provisos may result in an unequal treatment but the rationality of such an argument can only be tested provided there is material to substantiate the same and is otherwise challenged as observed here-in-above. 68. Accordingly, for all the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to come to the aid of the petitioners without prejudice to the rights of any person to the issues raised in Writ Petition No. 3569 (MS) of 2009, that is stated to be still pending consideration and further without prejudice to the rights of the Other Backward Classes to raise an appropriate challenge in the light of what has been observed here-in-above. 69. Both the writ petitions are therefore accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations.