Chhattisgarh HC Restricts The State Government From Enhancing The Reservation Of OBCs In Public Employment [Read Order]

The present writ petition challenged the amendment brought about by the Chhattisgarh government in the State's Reservation Act which enhanced the reservation for OBCs in public employment from 14% to 27%, taking the total extent of reservation to 82% from 58%.

The Petitioners also questioned the Ordinance route taken by the government to bring about the amendment and also the legality of the same considering the challenge to the previous enhancement of reservation to 58% is already pending before the court.

Petitioners made the following submissions before the court:

1. The enhancement in reservation goes against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
2. It also violates the condition laid down in M Nagaraj v. Union of India as the amendment is politically motivated and it did not collect any quantifiable data to ascertain whether OBCs are adequately represented or not
3. To protect the interest of one class, another class cannot be pushed down
4. While giving reservation, efficiency in service has to be kept in mind, as envisaged under Article 335 of the Constitution of India
5. The reservation policy is not be implemented with reference to the extent of population, to give a higher percentage if the population is higher

The counsel for the Respondent State, Mr Vijay Ansaria, made the following arguments:

1. Special circumstances as envisaged by the learned Judges in 'Nine' Member Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney's case exists in the present case
2. The extent of enhancement of reservation made by the State is only to 72% (enhancing it from 14% to 27% in respect of the OBC) and the remaining 10% (in making the total to 82%) is only by virtue of the Constitutional amendment providing 10% reservation to Economic Weaker Section of the Society (EWS)
3. Based on the large extent of population of 'OBC' in the State, which constitutes nearly 45%, the extent of 14% reservation was enhanced to 27%
4. No interim order can be granted staying a legislation, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Bhavesh D. Parish and Others vs. Union of India and Another
5. The decision was taken in light of Mahajan Committee Report 1983 which had pointed out that 90% of government jobs are occupied by 15% upper castes.

The court rejected the Respondent's reliance on Mahajan Committee Report by opining that when 58% of the total number of posts in the Government sector are occupied by the reserved communities, the said report cannot have any application or relevance as on date.

The court also went on to highlight that:

'if the extent of reservation to OBC was not felt required to be enhanced in the year 2012, what made the State to bring about the sea-change just after seven years in 2019, that too by way of an 'Ordinance' is a matter to be looked into.'

It was further observed by the court that despite the order passed by this court in a petition challenging the previous enhancement, wherein all decisions taken or proposed by the government were subjected to the final outcome of the case, the said amendment, and that too through the way of an Ordinance, amounts to mockery of the process and proceedings, paying scant regards to the orders passed by this Court.

Therefore, The Division Bench of Justice Ramachandra Menon and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu directed the government to not pursue any further steps providing benefits flowing from the 'Ordinance' under challenge granting enhancement of reservation to the OBC from 14% to 27% until further orders.

The court refused to mention anything with regard to the reservation to the 'EWS category' brought about as per the Amendment to the Constitution of India, which is pending consideration before the Apex Court.

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]