Constitution of India: Art.226 – Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006 – s.6 – Reservation – State framed Sports Policy in the year 2018 which provided that 3% reservation in admissions will be provided for sports graded person – Clause 10 of the said policy also provided that the said Sports Policy shall prevail on all the Departments and Organizations of Government of Punjab, however, if any other department wishes to have specific policy, it will be finalised in consultation with the Department of Sports – By order dated 25.07.2019, a decision was taken by the Government of Punjab to provide 1% reservation for sports persons taking into consideration Clause 10 of the Sporty Policy, 2018 – For academic year 2019-20, the State Government issued a notification, which provided for reservation in Government as well as private institutions but no reservation was provided for the management quota seats – The said notification was challenged before the High Court on the grounds that : (i) No reservation was provided for the management quota seats in private institutions and
(ii) Only 1% reservation instead of 3 % was provided for sports persons –High Court directed the State to provide 1% reservation in all private institutions and further directed that the said reservation shall apply to management quota seats as well and further issued writ of mandamus and directed that the fresh notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government institutions – Held: Direction of the High Court to provide 1% reservation to certain categories of person in all private institution in the State has become academic as, firstly, admissions for academic year 2019-20 are already given as per the interim orders of the Supreme Court, secondly, the state had now already provided the reservation even with respect to the private institutions for the academic year 2021-22 – High Court committed a grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus as a conscious policy decision was taken by the Government to provide for 1% reservation for sports persons – High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Art.226 – Direction of High Court quashed and set aside – Reservation.
Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 1 SCC 477 : [2009] 16 SCR 1; Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and others, (2015) 12 SCC 308 : [2015] 1 SCR 55; Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016) 11 SCC 113 : [2016] 1 SCR 727; Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2020) 3 SCC 1; M.
Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : [2006]
7 Suppl. SCR 336; Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : [2014] 11 SCR 463 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.