Court Cannot Interfere In Policy Sphere Of Govt, Instruct It To Provide Reservations: P&H HC Dismisses OBC Candidates' Pleas Seeking Reservation

The Punjab & Haryana High Court said that the Court cannot issue directions to the State for providing reservation to a particular class or category of citizens.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikas Suri observed, "A writ of Mandamus can only be issued where a legal right vests in the petitioner and there is a violation of that right by the government. Where a legal right is violated by a government order made pursuant to an existing reservation policy, a writ of mandamus can lie. However, the Court cannot interfere in the policy making sphere of the government and instruct it to provide reservations."

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking direction to the University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Panjab University and Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology to apply the Central Education Institutes (Reservation and Admission) Act, 2006 (CEI Act) by providing reservation to other backward classes (OBCs) category students for the session 2023-24 and 2024-25. 

The petitioner belonged to the OBC category and was seeking admission in Bachelor of Engineering course on the basis of OBC rank secured in JEE mains.

A single judge had disposed of the plea in July 2023, with the direction to the University to decide the representation.

Consequently, the Joint Admission Committee as well as Panjab University, Chandigarh dealt with the representation and rejected the same. The Committee said that the admissions in the participating institutions were strictly as per the rules and regulations framed by the Panjab University and UT Administration, Chandigarh; and there is no provision for reservation under the OBC category in any of the participating institutes.

The petitioner challenged the order of the Committee seeking mandamus to provide a reservation of 27% to the socially and educationally backward classes category in admission and to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the OBC category. A single bench dismissed the plea considering that the petitioner was admitted to the BE course under the general category without any dispute.

A review petition was filed challenging the dismissal order on the ground that his writ petition has been dismissed without expressing any opinion on the main prayer made and the issue raised by him, i.e. issuance of direction to the respondents to provide for 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes at the time of making admissions to Engineering courses.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner while pursuing BE (Civil Engineering) appeared in JEE-2024. He filed another plea seeking directions to the Chandigarh Colleges to provide 27% reservation to the OBC category.

Panjab University Does Not Come Under CEI Act

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the Panjab University or University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Panjab University (UIET) or Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Sector 26, Chandigarh (CCET-26), do not come within the ambit of the term 'Central Educational Institution' as defined under Section 2(d) of the CEI Act, 2006.

"A perusal of the provision under Section 2(d) of the CEI Act, 2006 shows that for an institute to be a Central Education Institution, it is to be a university established or incorporated by or under the Central Act; or an institution of national importance set up by an Act of Parliament; or an institution, declared as a deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and maintained by or is receiving aid from the Central Government; or an education institution set up by the Central Government under the Societies Registration Act, 1860; or an institution maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government and affiliated to an institution referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or is a constituent unit of an institution referred to in clause (iii) of the said provision," said the bench.

Reliance was also placed on Apex Court's decision in Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others vs. State of Haryana and others, [(2010) 1 SCC 477] to underscore that Article 15(4) does not make any mandatory provision for reservation and the power to make reservation under Article 15(4) is discretionary and no writ can be issued to effect reservation.

Court Can't Interfere In Policy Making Sphere Of Government

Speaking for the bench Justice Suri further said, that a writ of Mandamus can only be issued where a legal right vests in the petitioner and there is a violation of that right by the government. Where a legal right is violated by a government order made pursuant to an existing reservation policy, a writ of mandamus can lie.

However, the Court cannot interfere in the policy-making sphere of the government and instruct it to provide reservations.

While noting that the Panjab University and above colleges don't come under the provision of CEI Act, the bench said, "thus, reservation in terms of Section 3 of the Act (CEI Act) cannot be forced upon them. Reservation rules of Chandigarh Administration and Panjab University, Chandigarh not providing reservation for SEBC/OBC category, in admissions to the institutions under it, is a matter of policy decision and does not vest any right in the petitioner to seek issuance of mandamus to grant such reservation."

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate and Ms. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3 (in CWP-14572-2024) and for respondent Nos.2 and 4 (in CWP-16520-2023).

Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate, for respondent No.4 and (in CWP-14572-2024) and for respondent Nos.3 and 5 (in CWP-16520-2023).

Title: Vyom Yadav v. Union of India and others

 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 206

Click here to read/download the order