# SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH AND ANR v. THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 1 S.C.R. 479
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-01-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2022
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, Hima Kohli
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shri-kshetrimayum-maheshkumar-singh-and-anr-v-the-manipur-university-and-ors-35854
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions - Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in admission) Act, 2006 (as amended in
2012) - Reservation of seats in State University which was
subsequently converted into a Central University - Whether the
Amendment Act of 2012 was legislated to ensure that the reservation
for SC and ST candidates as prescribed in s.3 of the Parent Act,
2006 should not be reduced from bench mark of 15% and 7.5%
respectively - Whether the Amendment Act contemplates that the
percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates earmarked in
s.3 of Parent Act could be increased even to the detriment of the
earmarked percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, to ensure
that the over all 50% reservation for SC and ST taken collectively,
is not disturbed in any manner - Held: The Amendment Act was
enacted only to resolve the difficulties that were being faced by the
Central Educational Institutions in implementing the Reservation
Act when it came to the North Eastern States, including the State of
Manipur - The two provisos inserted in s.3 of the Parent Act are
nothing but a recognition of the demography of the North Eastern
States covered under the umbrella of "Specified north eastern
region" which have a substantial tribal population - After the
amendment of the Parent Reservation Act of 2006, Manipur
University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC
candidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates
which is in consonance with the 2nd proviso to s.3 of the Parent
Reservation Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act of 2012.
Parliamentary
Committees
Reports:
Reports
and
recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committees/
Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute can be used as
external aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguous words in a
statutory provision wherever considered necessary - It can also be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
taken note of as to the existence of a historical fact - At the same
time, it must be borne in mind that such Reports are not decisive
and a Court is free to arrive at a different conclusion based on its
own findings and other evidence produced by the parties.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Respondent No. 1 - University was originally
established as a 'State University' in the year 1980 under the
Manipur University Act No. 8 of 1980. As a State University,
respondent No. 1 - University was following the Manipur State
reservation policy by reserving 2% seats for SC candidates and
31% for ST candidates for admission into various courses. On
13th October, 2005, the respondent No. 1 - University was
converted into a 'Central University' under the Manipur
University Act No. 54 of 2005. After conversion too, respondent
No. 1 - University continued following the Manipur State
Reservation Policy, i.e., 2% for SC and 31% for ST for admission
upto the academic session 2008-2009. On 3rd January, 2007, the
Reservation Act came into force. Pursuant thereto, the
respondent No. 1 - University started following the reservation
policy as prescribed in Section 3 of the Reservation Act i.e. 15%
for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs for the academic session
2009-2010 onwards. A shift in reservation came on amendment
of the Reservation Act by virtue of the Amendment Act w.e.f.
19th June, 2012. [Para 20][498-E-H]
2. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Amendment Bill, 2010 was placed before the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development that submitted its 234th Report, which was tabled
before both the Houses of the Parliament on 26th February, 2011.
The Standing Committee took note of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons for amending the Reservation Act and also noticed
the practical difficulties faced by some of the CEIs in implementing
the provisions of the Reservation Act as expressed by the
Department of Higher Education. [Paras 21, 22][499-A;
500-E-F]
3. Reports and recommendatio

## Text

_Characters 0–39,781 of 68,307. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39781 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 479
479
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH AND ANR.
v.
THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2022)
JANUARY 05, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions - Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in admission) Act, 2006 (as amended in
2012) - Reservation of seats in State University which was
subsequently converted into a Central University - Whether the
Amendment Act of 2012 was legislated to ensure that the reservation
for SC and ST candidates as prescribed in s.3 of the Parent Act,
2006 should not be reduced from bench mark of 15% and 7.5%
respectively - Whether the Amendment Act contemplates that the
percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates earmarked in
s.3 of Parent Act could be increased even to the detriment of the
earmarked percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, to ensure
that the over all 50% reservation for SC and ST taken collectively,
is not disturbed in any manner - Held: The Amendment Act was
enacted only to resolve the difficulties that were being faced by the
Central Educational Institutions in implementing the Reservation
Act when it came to the North Eastern States, including the State of
Manipur - The two provisos inserted in s.3 of the Parent Act are
nothing but a recognition of the demography of the North Eastern
States covered under the umbrella of "Specified north eastern
region" which have a substantial tribal population - After the
amendment of the Parent Reservation Act of 2006, Manipur
University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC
candidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates
which is in consonance with the 2nd proviso to s.3 of the Parent
Reservation Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act of 2012.
Parliamentary
Committees
Reports:
Reports
and
recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committees/
Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute can be used as
external aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguous words in a
statutory provision wherever considered necessary - It can also be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
taken note of as to the existence of a historical fact - At the same
time, it must be borne in mind that such Reports are not decisive
and a Court is free to arrive at a different conclusion based on its
own findings and other evidence produced by the parties.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Respondent No. 1 - University was originally
established as a 'State University' in the year 1980 under the
Manipur University Act No. 8 of 1980. As a State University,
respondent No. 1 - University was following the Manipur State
reservation policy by reserving 2% seats for SC candidates and
31% for ST candidates for admission into various courses. On
13th October, 2005, the respondent No. 1 - University was
converted into a 'Central University' under the Manipur
University Act No. 54 of 2005. After conversion too, respondent
No. 1 - University continued following the Manipur State
Reservation Policy, i.e., 2% for SC and 31% for ST for admission
upto the academic session 2008-2009. On 3rd January, 2007, the
Reservation Act came into force. Pursuant thereto, the
respondent No. 1 - University started following the reservation
policy as prescribed in Section 3 of the Reservation Act i.e. 15%
for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs for the academic session
2009-2010 onwards. A shift in reservation came on amendment
of the Reservation Act by virtue of the Amendment Act w.e.f.
19th June, 2012. [Para 20][498-E-H]
2. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Amendment Bill, 2010 was placed before the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development that submitted its 234th Report, which was tabled
before both the Houses of the Parliament on 26th February, 2011.
The Standing Committee took note of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons for amending the Reservation Act and also noticed
the practical difficulties faced by some of the CEIs in implementing
the provisions of the Reservation Act as expressed by the
Department of Higher Education. [Paras 21, 22][499-A;
500-E-F]
3. Reports and recommendations made by the Parliamentary
Committees/Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
can be used as external aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguous
words in a statutory provision wherever considered necessary.
It can also be taken note of as to the existence of a historical fact.
At the same time, such Reports are not decisive and a Court is
free to arrive at a different conclusion based on its own findings
and other evidence produced by the parties. [Para 25][502-G-H]
4. It can be discerned from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons appended to the Amendment Bill, the background notes
submitted to the Standing Committee by the Department of
Higher Education and the 234th Report tabled by the Standing
Committee in the Parliament that some of the CEIs, in particular
those situated in North Eastern States having a predominant tribal
population, expressed their inability to reduce the extent of
reservation of seats for SCs and STs for ensuring reservation of
27% of the seats for the OBC category, as stipulated in the
Reservation Act. It can also be seen that the provisions of the
Reservation Act as they stood, exempted CEIs situated in tribal
areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, from
making any reservation for SCs and STs, which as a matter of
fact, was not the object behind introducing the enactment.
Recognising the fact that the composition of the population in
the North Eastern States ought to be given precedence, the
Standing Committee stated in its Report that while the extent of
reservation of seats for SCs/STs may be definite, OBC reservation
may differ from State to State. It was with the idea of reconciliating
50% cap on reservation for SCs/STs and 27% for the OBC quota,
that the Amendment Bill was introduced primarily to remove the
existing ambiguities and to overcome the difficulties that were
being faced by the CEIs established in the Sixth Schedule States,
to accommodate the aspirations of a large tribal population in
that region. [Para 26][503-C-F]
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellants cannot be heard
to state that the amendments brought about in the Reservation
Act by legislating the Amendment Act were only directed towards
tribal States covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution
and cannot be made applicable to the State of Manipur, even
though the definition of the expression "Specified north eastern
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR
UNIVERSITY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
region" introduced by virtue of the amended Section 2(ia)
encompasses the State of Manipur. Nor is this Court persuaded
by the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the second
proviso was inserted in Section 3 only to make sure that the
percentage of reservation provided for in Section 3(i) and (ii) of
the Parent Act would remain untouched. Accepting such a
submission would tantamount to negating the very aim and object
of the Amendment Act, which was enacted only to resolve the
difficulties that were being faced by the CEIs in implementing
the Reservation Act when it came to the North Eastern States,
including the State of Manipur. The two provisos inserted in Section
3 of the Parent Act are nothing but a recognition of the
demography of the North Eastern States covered under the
umbrella of "Specified north eastern region" which have a
substantial tribal population. [Para 27][503-G-H; 504-A-D]
6. Once the two provisos were inserted in Section 3 of the
Parent Act by virtue of the Amendment Act, the general norms
of reservation as laid down in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3
of the Parent Act had to be restricted in terms of the said provisos.
While the first proviso deals with "State seats", if any, in a CEI
situated in tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution, the second proviso addresses a situation where there
are no State seats in a CEI and the seats reserved for the SC/ST
candidates exceeds the percentage specified under Clauses (i)
and (ii) of Section 3 (viz., 15% seats for SCs plus 7.5% for STs,
totalling to 22.5% seats) or if the combined seats reserved for
the SC and ST candidates exceeds the sum total of the percentage
as specified under Clauses (i) and (ii). Two riders have also been
dovetailed in the second proviso to Section 3, namely Clauses (a)
and (b). Clause (a) of the second proviso, contemplates a situation
where seats referred to in the second proviso are less than 50%
of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.
Clause (b) provides for a situation where such seats are over
50% of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. In
a situation contemplated in Clause (a) of the second proviso, a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
483
restriction has been imposed on the total percentage of seats
required to be reserved for OBC candidates under Section 3(iii)
of the Parent Act by limiting them to the balance seats available
after factoring in the combined percentage of seats specified in
Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act, falling short of
50% of the annual permitted strength. But in circumstances
contemplated in Clause (b), the Act recognizes the fact that no
seats need be reserved for the OBC candidates under Clause
(iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. However, this is subject to the
condition that the extent of reservation of seats for SC and ST
candidates shall not be reduced when it comes to CEIs established
in "Specified north eastern region". This goes to demonstrate that
the underlying intent of the Amendment Act was to secure a
particular percentage of seats through reservation for a set of
candidates and leave some space for capping of seats for OBC
candidates, depending on the circumstances contemplated in
Clauses (a) and (b) of the second proviso to the amended
Section 3. [Para 30][506-A-G]
7. In the instant case, the respondent No.1-University has
clarified in its affidavit that prior to commencement of the
Reservation Act, the prevalent percentage of reservation for ST
and SC candidates was 31% and 2% respectively. Nothing to the
contrary has been brought forth by the appellant. That being the
position, the respondent No.1-University was right in reverting
back to the position obtaining immediately before the
commencement of the Reservation Act by reserving seats in
respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, pegged at 31%, 2% and
17% respectively which was in consonance with the Manipur State
Reservation Policy. [Para 31][506-G-H; 507-A-B]
8. The reference point of the period for determining the
reservation quota for OBC candidates must be the same as that
of the SC and ST candidates for the simple reason that for working
out the reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessarily
require one to find out in the first instance, as to what would be
the difference between 50% of the annual permitted strength
and the combined existing percentage for the SC and ST
candidates, as obtained on the date immediately preceding the
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
date of commencement of the Reservation Act. Both the issues
are so interlaced that to determine the percentage of reservation
for OBC candidates, one would have to undertake an exercise of
determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for SC and
ST candidates, all within the four corners of the second proviso
inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act. Any other interpretation
sought to be assigned to the second proviso to Section 3 inserted
post-amendment, would make the proviso itself unworkable and
redundant and is, therefore, impermissible. Thus, the general
rules of reservation have been encapsulated in Clauses (i), (ii)
and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. But when it comes to
CEIs established in States falling under the definition of "Specified
north eastern region", categorized in Section 2(ia) introduced by
the Amendment Act, the two new provisos appended to Section 3
would govern the norms of reservation which prescribes a
different criteria, vis-à-vis the main provision and would apply
irrespective of whether they are situated in areas covered by the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not. After amendment of
the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 - University had to
follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC candidates, 31% for
ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in
consonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation
Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act. [Paras 33, 34]
[507-E-H; 508-A-B, C-D]
State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap (1974) 3 SCC 337: [1974]
1 SCR 589; , R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) 2 SCC
183 : [1984] 2 SCR 495; Kalpana Mehta and Others.
v. Union of India and Others (2018) 7 SCC 1 : [2018]
4 SCR 1 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1974] 1 SCR 589
referred to
Para 25
[1984] 2 SCR 495
referred to
Para 25
[2018] 4 SCR 1
referred to
Para 25
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
485
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.163 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2017 of the High Court
of Manipur at Imphal in
W. P. (C) No.753 of 2014.
Ms. Punam Kumari, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Sanjay Jain, ASG, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Krishna
Kant Dubey, Vivek Kumar Pandey, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Pankaj Singh,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Apoorv Kurup, Kush Chaturvedi, Ms. Swarupma
Chaturvedi, Anukalp Jain, Balaji Srinivasan, Ashutosh Dubey, Abhishek
Chauhan, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Arun Nagar, Amit P. Shahi, Shivendra
Dwivedi, Rajesh Mahale, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HIMA KOHLI, J.
Leave granted.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21st August,
2017 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Petition (C)
No. 753 of 2014 whereunder, amongst others, it has been held that after
the amendment of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Act, 20061, in the year 2012, on introduction of the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act,
20122, respondent No. 1 - Manipur University3 is required to follow the
reservation norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste
[SC], 31% for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the Other
Backward Classes [OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.
2. To contextualize the issue raised in the present appeal, it is
necessary to briefly refer to the relevant facts of the case. Respondent
no. 1- University was initially established as a 'State University' under
the Manipur University Act, 1980 that came into force on 05th June,
1980. In the year 2005, the Manipur University Act was legislated,
whereafter respondent No. 1 - University was converted from a 'State
1 For short "the Reservation Act"
2 For short 'the Amendment Act"
3 'University'
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
University' to a 'Central University' w.e.f. 13th October, 2005. On 04th
January, 2007, the Reservation Act was notified. Section 3 of the said
Act prescribed reservation of seats in the Central Educational Institutions
and laid down as follows:
"3. Reservation of seats in Central Educational
Institutions.-
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 faculty, fifteen per cent. seats shall be reserved for
the Scheduled Castes;
ii
out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study
or faculty, seven and one-half per cent. seats shall be
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes;
iii.
out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study
or faculty, twenty-seven per cent. seats shall be
reserved for the Other Backward Classes."
[emphasis supplied]
3. The expression "out of the annual permitted strength"
referred to in Section 3 above, has been defined in Section 2(b) in the
following words:
"2. Definitions:-
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
xxx
xxx
xxx
b. "annual permitted strength" means the number of seats, in
a course or programme for teaching or instruction in each branch
of study or faculty authorised by an appropriate authority for
admission of students to a Central Educational Institution;
xxx
xxx
xxx"
4. From the academic year 2009-10 onwards, respondent No. 1 -
University started following the reservation norms as prescribed in the
Reservation Act. On 20th June, 2012, the aforesaid Statute was amended
by virtue of the Amendment Act and as a result of the said amendment,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
487
Clauses (ia) and (ib) were inserted in Section 2, i.e. the definition clause
and two provisos were inserted in Section 3. Further, Clause (a) of Section
4 was omitted and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 were amended.
The aforesaid Amendment Act, 2012 that forms the bedrock of the
grievance raised in the present appeal, is extracted below for ready
reference:
"THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
(RESERVATION IN ADMISSION) AMENDMENT
ACT,2012
NO. 31 OF 2012 [19th June, 2012]
PREAMBLE
An Act to amend the Central Educational Institutions
(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 Be it enacted by Parliament
in the Sixty-third Year of the Republic of India as follows: -
SECTION - 1. Short title.-This Act may be called the Central
Educational institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012.
SECTION - 2. Amendment of section 2 -In section 2 of the
Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006 (5 of 2007) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act),
after clause (i), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely:-
(ia) "Specified north-eastern region" means the area
comprising of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura and the
tribal areas of Assam referred to in the Sixth Schedule to
the Constitution;
(ib) "State seats", in relation to a Central Educational Institution,
means such seats, if any, out of the annual permitted strength in
each branch of study or faculty as are earmarked to be filled
from amongst the eligible students of the State in which such
institution is situated;
SECTION -3. Amendment of section 3.- In section 3 of the
principal Act, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:-
"Provided that the State seats, if any, in a Central Educational
Institution situated in the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
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 (i) 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.".
SECTION - 4. Amendment of section 4.-In section 4 of the
principal Act, clause (a) shall be omitted.
SECTION - 5. Amendment of section 5.-In section 5 of the
principal Act, - (a) in sub-section (1), for the words "number of
such seats available", the words "number of such seats available
or actually filled, wherever be less, shall be substituted;
(b) in sub-section (2), for the words "three years", the words "six
years" shall be substituted."
[emphasis supplied]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
489
5. Relying on the provision of reservation made under Section 3
of the Reservation Act, Respondent No. 1 - University promulgated
Ordinance 5.2, that prescribes rules relating to admission to the University
and Ordinance 5.4 deals with reservation of seats and other special
provisions for admission to the University, both in the year 2014. Rule 18
of Ordinance 5.2 reads as below:
"18. 15% of the seats in the academic programmes offered
by the University shall be reserved for students belonging
to Scheduled Caste, 7-1/2 % for students belonging to
Scheduled Tribe and 27% for students belonging to Other
Backward Classes.
Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent
the University from making special provisions for admission of
women, persons with disabilities or of persons belonging to the
weaker sections of the society and, in particular, of the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the other socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens.
Provided further that no such special provision shall be made on
the ground of domicile."
[emphasis supplied]
6. While Rule 1 of Ordinance 5.4 deals with reservation of seats,
Rule 2 deals with reservation of seats for students belonging to SC &
ST categories. Respondent No. 1 - University has stipulated in Rule 2.1
of Ordinance 5.4 as below:
"2. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
22.5% of seats in all Courses will be reserved for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the following order:
2.1
15% of seats will be reserved for Scheduled Castes
and 7.5% Scheduled Tribes. 27% of seats will be
reserved for OBC. "
7. For the academic year 2014-15, respondent No. 1- University
issued a prospectus, stating inter alia that seats shall be reserved as per
the Government of India norms. In the Press Release dated 24th July,
2014, respondent No. 1 - University clarified that for conducting
admissions for the academic year 2014-15, reservation will be provided
to the extent of 2% for SC category, 31% for ST category and 17% for
OBC category.
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
8. Aggrieved by the denial of admission to them, the appellants,
who are candidates belonging to the SC category and had applied for
admission in various Post Graduate courses, questioned the purported
reduction of the quota for SC category candidates from 15%, as
prescribed in Section 3 of the Reservation Act to 2% and filed a writ
petition in the High Court of Manipur which was disposed of by the
learned Single Judge vide order dated 01st September, 2015, holding
inter alia that the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates,
as was applied to the respondent No. 1 - University prior to the
commencement of the Reservation Act, would be adopted for
determination of percentage of reservation for the reserved categories
in question. It was specifically directed that the percentage of reservation
for the students belonging to the SC, ST and OBC categories in the
University, would be 2%, 31% and 17% respectively for admission to
various courses. However, the Court declined to go into the actual
calculation of the seats notified as reserved by the respondent No. 1 -
University and confined itself to the principles to be adopted for
determination of percentage of reservation of seats on which basis,
calculation of the seats had to be made.
9. Dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment dated 01st September,
2015, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 40 of 2015 before the High
Court of Manipur at Imphal. As no Division Bench was available due to
paucity of Judges in the said Court, recourse was taken to filing a Transfer
Petition before this Court, which was allowed and the captioned writ
appeal was transferred to the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong for
adjudication by a Division Bench and was re-numbered as Writ Appeal
No. 83 of 2016.
10. Vide judgment dated 20th April, 2017, the Division Bench of
the High Court of Meghalaya remanded the matter back to the learned
Single Judge of the Manipur High Court for consideration afresh and
called upon the said Court to examine and decide the percentage of
reservation for SC, ST and OBC categories in the light of the second
proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act [as amended vide
Amendment Act] and the effect of Ordinance 5.2 and Ordinance 5.4,
promulgated by the respondent No. 1 - University. It is on remand that
the impugned judgment dated 21st August, 2017 has been passed by the
High Court of Manipur, the concluding para whereof is extracted below
for ready reference:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
"[71] This Court accordingly, concludes and directs as follows:
(i) This Court holds, as also held by Hon'ble Division Bench, that
the Second Proviso provides the formulae for working out the
percentage of reservation for the OBCs in the Institutions located
in the States within the specified north eastern region which is to
be worked out on the basis of the figures of percentages for the
SCs and STs existing on the date immediately preceding the date
of commencement of the Act of 2006.
(ii) It is this set of figures of percentages for the SCs and STs
existing on the date immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Act of 2006 ascertained and used for
working out the percentage of reservation for the OBCs, which
would also be the percentages of reservation for admission for
the SCs and STs after the amendment of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 by the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012, and the Institute or the Manipur University cannot
anymore invoke Clause (i) and (ii) of Section 3 to determine the
reservation for the SCs and STs separately.
(iii) The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006 as amended in the year 2012, does not provide nor the
Hon'ble Division Bench had held that, once the aforesaid set of
figures of percentages for SCs and STs existing on the date
immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Act of
2006 have been ascertained and used for working out the
percentage of reservation for the OBCs, this set has to be jettisoned
and ignored and the Institute. (Manipur University in this case)
can go back to Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 to determine the
reservation of reservation for the SCs and STs independent of the
figures used under the Second Proviso after the amendment of
the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006 in 2012.
Neither the Act, nor the Hon'ble Division Bench has stated
that irrespective of the formula for ascertaining the percentage of
reservation for the OBCs as provided under the Second Proviso
to Section 3 of the Act after the amendment in 2012, the Institute
has to apply Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Act to fix the
percentage of reservation for the SCs and STs.
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
(iv) Second Proviso was specifically inserted for the Central
Educational Institutions located in the specified North Eastern
Region for protecting the interest of STs, particularly as evident
from the Clause (b) of the Second Proviso. It protects the interest
of the STs wherever, their percentage of reservation is more than
what is prescribed under Clause (ii) of Section 3 of the Act. The
Act specifically provides that even if the extent of reservation of
seats of the STs & SCs exceed 50% of the annual permitted
strength on the date immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Act, there shall not be reservation for the
OBCs under Clause (3) but, the extent of reservation of seats for
STs & SCs shall not be reduced.
(v) The Institute has to determine the percentages of reservation
for admission for the SCs, STs and OBCs on the basis of the
Central Educational institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006 as amended in 2012 and not on the basis of any other statute.
In the present case, the Manipur University has to fix the
percentages of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs on the
basis of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Act, 2006 as amended in 2012 and not on the basis of
Section 31(1)(a) or any other provision of the Manipur University
Act, 2005 as the Manipur University Act is no more the source of
authority for determining the percentages of reservation after the
implementation of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation
in Admission) Act, 2006.
(vi) The reservation norm has to be adopted by the Manipur
University by referring to the Central Educational Institutions
(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 as amended by the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment
Act, 2012 only and by not referring to any provision of the Manipur
University Act, 2005.
(vii) Accordingly, any Statute or Ordinance or any rule or notification
fixing the percentage of reservation for admission framed/issued
by the Manipur University has to conform to the aforesaid norm
of 2% for the Scheduled Castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes
and 17% for the Other Backward Classes worked out and
ascertained in terms of the Second Proviso to Section 3 of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
493
Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act,
2006 as amended in 2012. Any other norm not conforming to the
above will be invalid being in contravention of the Central Education
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 as amended in
2012.
(viii) Ordinances 5.2 and 5.4 made by the Manipur University as
far as determining the percentages of reservation for the SCs,
STs and OBCs are concerned, are not valid. Hence, these have
no value, worth or effect as far as the issue of determination of
the percentages of reservation for the SCs, STs and OBCs in
Manipur University is concerned.
(ix) In any event, it has not been shown by these Ordinances,
how the Manipur University had fixed the percentage of
reservation for the OBCs at 27% in the face of the formulae
specifically provided under the Second Proviso for working out
the percentage of reservation for the OBCs and also for the SCs
and STs. To that extent, these Ordinances also suffer from the
vice of arbitrariness.
(x) The validity of these Ordinances relating to other matters,
other than fixation of percentage of reservation for admission of
students, not being an issue in this petition, is left open to be decided
in appropriate case.
(xi) Before the implementation of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, Manipur
University was following the reservation norm of 2% for
the Scheduled Castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes and
17% for the Other Backward Classes.
(xii) After the implementation of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, Manipur
University started following the reservation norm as per
Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Act to the extent
of 15% for the Scheduled Castes, 7.5% for the Scheduled
Tribes, and 27% for the Other Backward Classes from the
academic year 2009-2010.
(xiii) After the amendment of the Central Educational
Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 in 2012
introduced by the Central Educational Institutions
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
(Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012,
Manipur University has to follow the reservation norm of
2% for the Scheduled castes, 31 % for the Scheduled Tribes
and 17% for the Other Backward Classes."
[emphasis supplied]
11. Ms. Punam Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants has
assailed the impugned judgment contending that the High Court has erred
in taking a view that the proviso inserted vide the Amendment Act,
would be applicable to a Central Educational Institution4 located in States
falling within the "Specified north eastern region" and that the extent
of reservation would have to be worked out on the basis of the figures of
percentage for the SCs and STs, as was existing on the date immediately
preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act. It is her
submission that the amendments brought about by the Amendment Act
are only in respect of tribal States falling under the purview of the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution of India5 and not in respect of other States
including a State like Manipur falling under "Specified north eastern
region", defined in the amended Section 2 (ia) of the Parent Act
[Reservation Act].
12. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to draw a distinction
between the amended Section 2 (ia) that defines "Specified north
eastern region" and the amended Section 3 by virtue of the Amendment
Act by urging that clause (ia) of Section 2 has been inserted only to
group together all North Eastern States, irrespective of whether they
fall under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not, whereas Section
3 makes a separate provision for a tribal State. She submitted that the
second proviso was inserted in Section 3 only to ensure that the
percentage of reservation provided for in Section 3 (i) and (ii) of the
Reservation Act that laid down the percentage of reservation of seats
for SC and ST candidates as 15% and 7.5% respectively, were to be
maintained and not that the same could be increased or decreased by
the CEI in a "Specified north eastern region". It was canvassed that
the group of States defined in Section 2 (ia) as "Specified north eastern
region", have been created by the Amendment Act with the specific
purpose of protecting the interest of SC and ST candidates belonging to
4 For short "the CEI"
5 For short "the Constitution"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
495
other North Eastern States that are not tribal States and contrary to the
said provision, respondent No. 1 - University has reduced the quota of
seats for SC candidates, which is impermissible.
13. It was further sought to be pointed out on behalf of the appellants
that amendment to Section 3 of the Reservation Act was necessitated
only because Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act, stood omitted by the
Amendment Act. Pertinently, Section 4(a) of the Reservation Act as it
stood prior to the amendment, stated that the provision of Section 3 of
the Act would not apply to a CEI established in tribal areas, referred to
in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. It was submitted that the intention
of the Legislature in amending the Reservation Act by introducing the
Amendment Act was not to make the amendments applicable to CEIs
situated in non- tribal States like the State of Manipur and the expression
"on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of
the Reservation Act", as used in the second proviso to Section 3 of
the Act, qualifies the expression "annual permitted strength" as used
in Section 3 and defined in Section 2(b) of the Parent Act and not the
extent of reservation.
14. To sum up, it is the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants that the Amendment Act was legislated to ensure that
reservation for SC and ST candidates as prescribed in Section 3 of the
Parent Act, should not be reduced from the benchmark of 15% and
7.5% respectively. Rather, the Amendment Act contemplates that the
percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates earmarked in Section
3 of the Parent Act could be increased even to the detriment of the
earmarked percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, to ensure
that the overall limit of 50% reservation for SC and ST candidates taken
collectively, is not disturbed in any manner.
15. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General appeared
for the respondent No. 5 - Union of India that has filed a counter affidavit
through the Ministry of Human Resource Development. In its counter
affidavit, Union of India has supported the findings returned in the
impugned judgment to the effect that the percentage of reservation for
SC and ST candidates was existing and being applied by the respondent
No. 1 - University when it was a 'State University', before the
commencement of the Reservation Act, viz. 31% for STs and 2% for
SCs which was required to be adopted for determination of the percentage
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH v. THE MANIPUR
UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
of reservation for ST and SC candidates in the University and that the
percentage of reservation for OBC candidates was to be restricted to
the extent of the percentages of reservation for the ST and SC candidates
taken collectively, provided it falls short of 50% of the annual permitted
strength, as provided under clause (a) of the second proviso to the
amended Section 3 of the Reservation Act. It is the stand of the Union
of India that the percentage of reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates
has been correctly pegged at 2%, 31% and 17% respectively for admission
to various courses in the respondent No. 1 - University, since the same
percentage was applicable immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the Reservation Act.
16. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 7, an ST category candidate has supported the stand
taken by the respondent No. 5 - Union of India and submitted that the
plea of the appellants for restoration of minimum 15% reservation for
SC students is impermissible. He argued that the respondent No. 1 -
University is a 'Central University' and is governed by the Rules and
Regulations of the Central Government which in this case, translates
into the Reservation Act. He clarified that the respondent No. 1 -
University had the status of a 'State University' only till the year 2005
and at that point in time, it was following the then prevalent rules of
reservation in the State of Manipur viz. 2% for SC candidates and 31%
for ST candidates for admission in courses offered by the University.
However, the said position changed when the respondent No. 1 -
University was granted the status of a 'Central University' in the year
2005 and was thereafter governed under the Reservation Act which
came into force w.e.f. 03rd January, 2007. On being designated as a
Central University, respondent No. 1 - University discontinued the
reservation norms of the State Government and started following the
reservation norms provided under Section 3 of the Reservation Act i.e.,
15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBCs. Learned counsel clarified
that the respondent No.