LPA No. 1356 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1356 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 23 .11.2010 Jatinder Kumar ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.GKS Taank ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 7.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. The provision of Section 4(5) has provided for microscopic reservation in one identified class of Scheduled Caste which is unconstitutional in view of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. 2005(3) SLR 363. The aforesaid judgement has been followed by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Gurmail Singh v.State of Punjab and others 2008(1) SLR 23 and also in the case of Gajey Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 398 of 2004 decided on 6.7.2006). We have heard the learned counsel. The only argument raised by Dr. G.K.S.Tannk is that although the view of this Court expressed in the case of Gurmail Singh (supra) has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme LPA No. 1356 of 2010 2 Court but in similar other matters the views of the Division Bench of this Court has been stayed. The learned counsel has argued that even the Constitution Bench judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has followed the view taken by the Division Bench in Gurmail Singh's case (supra). The proposition of law involved is that microscopic reservation bifurcating one class of Scheduled Castes into further classes is impermissible and therefore it violates Articles 15(4), 16 (1) and other provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, we are of the view that till the time the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in E.V.Chinnaiah's case (supra) holds the field, it is not possible for us to take a different view. It is a different matter if the judgement in E.V.Chinnaiah's case (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench but the fact remains that the principles of law laid down in E.V.Chinnaiah's case (supra) continues to prevail even today. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument of Dr.G.K.S.Taank and uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) 23.11.2010 Judge okg