Shri Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh and Anr. vs The Manipur University and Ors.

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 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 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 UNIVERSITY [HIMA KOHLI, J.]

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 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.