ATYANT PICHHARA BARG CHHATRA SANGH AND ANR. versus JHARKHAND STATE VAISHY FEDERATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 08-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ATYANT PICHHARA BARG CHHATRA SANGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
JHARKHAND ST A TE V AISHY A FEDERATION AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Article I 4-State Notifications providing separate 
reservations to Extremely Backward Classes and Backward Classes for 
appointments in Government Services and in professional educational C 
institutions-Revised Notification issued amalgamating the two Classes into 
one Class and providing a consolidated reservation-High Court upheld the 
validity of the revised Notification-Correctness of-Held, on facts, the State 
did not make an empirical study before taking a policy decision of 
amalgamating the two classes-Hence, the amalgamation is arbitrary and 
violative of Article 14-Direction to State to set up a Committee for a detailed D 
study for the purpose. 
State of Jharkand, by a notification, provided 73% reservation for 
appointments in Government services by adopting the Bihar (Scheduled 
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Reservation Act, 1992 E 
with certain modifications. By another notification, the State made 
available the same percentage of reservations to professional educational 
institutions also. Extremely Backward Classes and Backward Classes were 
entitled to 18% and 9% reservation respectively. Several writ petitions 
came to be filed before High Court challenging the reservation. A. Full 
Bench of the High Court passed an interim order limiting the percentage F 
of reservations to 50% with certain directions. The State accordingly 
issued a revised notification reducing the reservations to 50%. The State, 
in the revised notification, amalgamated the two categories-Extremely 
Backward Classes and Backward Classes-into one category as 'Other 
Backward Category' and provided a consolidated reservation of 14%. 
G 
Appellants filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging 
the revised Noti.fication. The High Court quashed the revised notification 
holding that the State cannot club together the two categories for the 
purpose of interim arrangement. The High Court allowed the intra-court H 
319 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPOR rs 12006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Appeal preferred by the State and upheld the validity of the revised 
notification. 
B 
The appellants contended that the amalgamation of the two classes 
by the State was made without application of mind and without an study, 
data and materials justifying amalgamation; that the amalgamation suffers 
from the vice of discrimination as the two unequals have been treated as 
equals and that two different classes of people have been treated as similar; 
that the notification was not passed in accordance with the interim order 
of the Full Bench of the High Court. 
C 
The State contended that the revised Notification was passed in 
D 
accordance with the directions of the interim order of the High Court; 
that the amalgamation of the two classes was done after careful application 
of mind and due deliberation by the highest policy making body of the 
State Government; and that the new policy of allocating reservation of 
other Backward Classes as one block is also similar to and consistent with 
the policy of the Central Government. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I. I. The Full Bench of the High Court had given the 
E Government a limited liberty to bring down the percentage of reservation 
from 73% to 50% for an interim purpose and did not give any direction 
with respect to the amalgamation of categories. The amalgamation of two 
different classes are treated similarly which is in violation of the mandate 
of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia which is to "treat similar similarly 
and to treat different differently". It is well settled that to treat u.nequals 
F as equals also violates Article 14 of the Constitution. (327-D-EI 
1.2. The State has failed to show any new circumstances except for 
a bald statement that the same was done after careful application of mind 
and due deliberation by the highest policy making body i.e., the Council 
G of Ministers. There are no materials or empirical data to indicate that the 
circumstances had been changed and the State has not undertaken any 
study, research or work. In such circumstances to merely suggest that the 
council of Ministers had applied their minds and had reached a decision 
is arbitrary and unreasonable. (327-F-G I 
H 
1.3. The State by its actions seeks to dis-empower communit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.