THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER versus ANSHIKA GOYAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 25-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
77
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 77
77
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
v.
ANSHIKA GOYAL AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2022)
JANUARY 25, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
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.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 16 SCR1
referred to
Para 3.2
[2015] 1 SCR 55
referred to
Para 3.2
[2016] 1 SCR 727
referred to
Para 3.2
(2020) 3 SCC 1
referred to
Para 3.2
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336
referred to
Para 8c
[2014] 11 SCR 463 
referred to
Para 8c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 317 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.17248 of
2019.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 318 and 319-320 of 2022.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Samten Doma, Ms. Ranjeeta
Rohatgi, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Ms. Harshika
Verma, Tushar Bakshi, R. P. Sharma, Deepak Goel, K. Parameshwar,
Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Prasad Hegde, Pushpinder Singh, Ms. Shalini Kaul,
Siddhartha Jha, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 26.07.2019 and 08.08.2019 passed by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.17248/2019 and
CWP No. 18989 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the said
writ petitions and has directed the State to issue a fresh notification
providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist
affected persons/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.