Civil writ Petition No.17933 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil writ Petition No.17933 of 2009 Decided on : 27.7.2010 Udit Kamboj .... Petitioner VERSUS Panjab University & another .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH, J. No one appeared for the petitioner, when case was called in the morning. Now, also no one has come present to represent the petitioner. The prayer made in the writ petition is for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to make a provision for reservation of other backward classes(OBC) in admission to the University Business School in terms of Central Educational Institution (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The grievance is that no reservation has been provided for OBC. It is also pleaded that the vires of Act has been upheld by Civil writ Petition No.17933 of 2009 -2- the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Thakur Vs. Union of India & others, 2008(6) SCC 1. In response to notice issued, the respondent/University has appeared through counsel. Short reply is filed. In the reply, it is noted that the plea made in the writ petition is a complete misconception. Reference is made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. A.C. Julka & others Vs. Panjab University and others, where it is held that the Panjab University is not a Central University or a University established or incorporated under the Central Act. It is, accordingly, pleaded that the respondent-University is not covered by the Act, which has been invoked by the petitioner to pray for the mandamus. A complete copy of the judgment in Dr. A.C. Julka's case (supra) has been annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. Reference is then made to definition of Central Educational Institution in Section 2 (d) of the Act to say that the Panjab University is not covered by the above definition. It is further pleaded that the provisions of Articles 15 (4) 15 (5) of the Constitution of India like Article 16(4) are only enabling and not a mandatory provision and no mandamus to seek direction for making reservation would be maintainable. Such a prayer, it is pleaded, cannot be granted in this regard. Reference in this regard is made to Gulshan Parkash (Dr.) & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2010(1) SCC 477. It is, accordingly, pleaded that there is no merit in the writ petition. Civil writ Petition No.17933 of 2009 -3- In view of the position as noticed above, no cause for issuance of mandamus as prayed for is made out. Nothing has been pointed out before me in support of pleas as raised in the petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 27, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE