Mandamus Cannot Be Issued To Provide For Reservation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to provide for reservation.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while quashing a direction issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges in the State of Punjab.

In this case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana  allowed writ petitions and directed the State to issue a  notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab. The court further directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats as well. It further directed that the fresh notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges. The State of Punjab challenged this judgment before the Apex Court.

The issue considered by the Apex Court bench was whether the State Government's action taking a policy decision to prescribe a particular percentage of reservation/quota for a particular category of persons, can be interfered with by issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the State Government to provide for a particular percentage of reservation for a particular category of persons other than what has been provided in the policy decision taken by the State Government?

The court referred to the following judgments on this aspect: (i) Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 477 (para 27); (ii) Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 308 (para 26); (iii) Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 113 (para 49); and (iv) Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 1 (paras 18 & 19).

The court noted that the above judgments have held that no mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation.

"It was further observed that even no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation. It was observed that even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation.", the bench noted.

Therefore, while allowing the appeal, the court observed thus:

9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the State Government to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sports persons, instead of 1% as provided by the State Government. A conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to provide for 1% reservation/quota for sports persons. A specific order dated 25.07.2019 was also issued by the State Government. Therefore, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of reservation for sports persons, namely, in the present case, 3% reservation instead of 1% provided by the State Government, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court insofar as directing the State to provide for 3% reservation for sports persons and/or provide for a sports quota of 3% in the Government Medical/Dental Colleges is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment