Constitution Doesn't Mandate Reservation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea For OBC Reservation In RGNUL Patiala

Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a Petition seeking 27 per cent OBC Reservation in admissions to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala, holding that the Constitution doesn't mandate reservation and that the University cannot be compelled.

The Court was considering a Petition filed by a Jat Sikh aggrieved by the fact that no reservation for Backward Classes is provided in admissions at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, Punjab.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjeev Berry observed, "From the terminology used in Article 15(4), it is obvious that the Constitution does not mandate providing for reservation or quantum therefor, but leaves it for the State to make special provisions for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Satnam Singh Abiana, while the Respondent was represented by Senior Panel Counsel Anil Chawla.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that despite the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) where, reservation for Other Backward Classes has been upheld and also looking to the fact that other National Law Universities have provisions for reserving 27% of seats for OBC category, the Respondent No.2 University by not providing any reservation for OBCs has acted unconstitutionally.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court noted at the outset that it need not enter into the prolixity of adjudication since similar issue of non-reservation for OBC category in the Panjab University has already been decided wherein the status-quo was upheld primarily on the ground that even the Constitution under Article 15(4) does not mandatorily provide for reservation as the said provision under the Constitution qua reservation is only an enabling provision, thereby, leaving it to the concerned Institute/State to provide for reservation.

"The aforesaid challenge cannot succeed in view of the fact that the Constitution itself provides for reservation through an enabling provision and not mandatory. More so, respondent No.2 University not being a Central Educational Institute under the The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, cannot be compelled to provide for a particular quantum of reservation as regards OBCs," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Komalpreet Kaur Dhillon vs. Union of India and Others

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Satnam Singh Abiana

Respondent- Senior Panel Counsel Anil Chawla, Advocate Puneet Gupta, Advocate Anil Rana, Advocate Ravindra Singh, Advocate Lovenish Kaur, Advocate Heman Aggarwal

Click here to read/ download Order