Rajneesh Mishra, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Bhupam Sahu and Jharkhand Pradesh Kushbaha vs State of Jharkhand and Others <BR> Dinesh Niraj Saima Vs Union of India (UOI)

When this matter came up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the parties pointed out to us that in an identical matter arising from Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court is seized of the issues involved in this case, viz whether it is constitutionally permissible to exceed the limit of 50% in so far as reservations are concerned. It has been pointed out to us that the identical matter pending consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is in an ''Appeal arising out of SLP � No. 13526 of 1993; Voice (Consumer Care Council) v. State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the fact that the issues involved herein are pending adjudication before the Apex Court, it was suggested by the learned counsel appearing for all the parties that we should defer the hearing in this case and await the judgment of the Supreme Court. We found ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid proposal as made by the learned counsel for all the parties.

In so far as the question relating to evolving an interim arrangement in the meanwhile is concerned, a suggestion was mooted from the Court to the learned counsel appearing for all the parties that pending the pronouncement of the judgment by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter, the State be permitted to process, undertake, and complete the appointments to be made in future but subject to the condition that instead of having 73% reservations (as impugned in this petition) 50% of the appointments may be made from out of the reserved categories, and 27% of such appointments should be made from out of the candidates belonging to the General (Open) Category. The appointments thus to be made in the said 50% categories (as would now correspondingly stand reduced from 73% to 50%) shall be on proportionate basis, with due reference and regard being had to the percentage of the categories as constituted the sum-total of the original impugned 73%.

In so far as the remaining 23% of the appointments quota is concerned, the Court suggested that the same be made on the basis of the merit, irrespective of any Category or Class but such appointments as would be made with respect to the aforesaid 23% quota are concerned, these shall be Adhoc/Provisional, subject to the result of this petition which of course in turn shall be based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, as and when it is pronounced by their Lordships.

Actually the orders offering appointments to the persons in the aforesaid 23% Category, should clearly state that the appointments offered are Adhoc/Provisional and that these would be dependent on the result of this petition.

In so far as the admissions to all types of Educational Institutions in the State, including all types of Technical and Professional Institutions are concerned, the Court suggested that the aforesaid arrangement would mutatis mutandis be applicable to such admissions and that the admissions to be made against 23% disputed category should be provisional in the sense that these would also abide by the result of this petition.

Learned counsel for the parties including Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents have agreed to the aforesaid suggestions of the Court.

Based on such agreement, accordingly, we hereby order that the aforesaid arrangement, based on our aforesaid suggestions, shall hereafter be the interim arrangement, as would be operative until further orders from this Court. This interim arrangement (as is hereby being evolved) shall be prospective, in the sense that all appointments to be made, or admissions to be granted in the Educational Institutions, shall be governed by the aforesaid interim arrangement, but this arrangement shall not apply to appointments already made or admissions already granted and which have since been implemented.

We put on record our deep sense of appreciation for the assistance rendered by Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners Mrs. Delip Jerath and Mr. Raju Ramchandran, learned Advocate for the Intervenors.

In case the parties or any of them feel any difficulty in either understanding or implementing any of these directions, they/it shall be at liberty to approach this Court for any clarification of this order.

Adjourned sine die. Can be listed again if mentioned by the parties or any of them.