Case: Ram Singh &amp; Others Vs. Union of India

which was submitted in the year 2012, all the other reports as well as the literature on the subject would be at least a decade old. The necessary data on which the exercise has to be made, as already observed by us, has to be contemporaneous. Outdated statistics cannot provide accurate parameters for measuring backwardness for the purpose of inclusion in the list of Other Backward Classes. This is because one may legitimately presume progressive advancement of all citizens on every front i.e. social, economic and education. Any other view would amount to retrograde governance. Yet, surprisingly the facts that stare at us indicate a governmental affirmation of such negative governance inasmuch as decade old decisions not to treat the Jats as backward, arrived at on due consideration of the existing ground realities, have been reopened, inspite of perceptible all round development of the nation. This is the basic fallacy inherent in the impugned governmental decision that has been challenged in the present proceedings. The percentage of the OBC population estimated at “not less than 52%” (Indra Sawhney) certainly must have gone up considerably as over the last two decades there has been only inclusions in the Central as well as State OBC Lists and hardly any exclusion therefrom. This is certainly not what has been envisaged in our Constitutional Scheme. 52. In so far as the contemporaneous report for the State of Haryana is concerned, the discussion that has preceded indicate adequate and good reasons for the view taken by the NCBC in respect of the said Report and not to accept the findings contained therein. The same would hardly require any further reiteration. 53. Past decisions of this Court in M.R. Balaji Vs. State of Mysore (1963 Suppl. (1) SCR 439) and Janaki Prasad Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir ((1973) 1 SCC 420 )had conflated the two expressions used in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and read them synonymously. It is in Indra Sawhney’s case (supra) that this Court held that the terms “backward class” and “socially and educationally backward classes” are not equivalent and further that in Article 16(4) the backwardness contemplated is mainly social. The above interpretation of backwardness in Indra Sawhney (supra) would be binding on numerically smaller Benches. We may, therefore, understand a social class as an identifiable section of society which may be internally homogenous (based on caste or occupation) or heterogeneous (based on disability or gender e.g. transgender). Backwardness is a manifestation caused by the presence of several independent circumstances which may be social, cultural, economic, educational or even political. Owing to historical conditions, particularly in Hindu society, recognition of backwardness has been associated with caste. Though caste may be a prominent and distinguishing factor for easy determination of backwardness of a social group, this Court has been routinely discouraging the identification of a group as backward solely on the basis of caste. Article 16(4) as also Article 15(4) lays the foundation for affirmative action by the State to reach out the most deserving. Social groups who would be most deserving must necessarily be a matter of continuous evolution. New practices, methods and yardsticks have to be continuously evolved moving away from caste centric definition of backwardness. This alone can enable recognition of newly emerging groups in society which would require palliative action. The recognition of the third gender as a socially and educationally backward class of citizens entitled to affirmative action of the State under the Constitution in National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438 )is too significant a development to be ignored. In fact it is a path finder, if not a path-breaker. It is an important reminder to the State of the high degree of vigilance it must exercise to discover emerging forms of backwardness. The State, therefore, cannot blind itself to the existence of other forms and instances of backwardness. An affirmative action policy that keeps in mind only historical injustice would certainly result in under-protection of the most deserving backward class of citizens, which is constitutionally mandated. It is the identification of these new emerging groups that must engage the attention of the State and the constitutional power and duty must be concentrated to discover such groups rather than to enable groups of citizens to recover “lost ground” in claiming preference and benefits on the basis of historical prejudice. 54. The perception of a self-proclaimed socially backward class of citizens or even the perception of the “advanced classes” as to the social status of the “less fortunates” cannot continue to be a constitutionally permissible yardstick for determination of backwardness, both in the context of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. Neither can any longer backwardness be a matter of determination on the basis of mathematical formulae evolved by taking into account social, economic and educational indicators. Determination of backwardness must also cease to be relative; possible wrong inclusions cannot be the basis for further inclusions but the gates would be opened only to permit entry of the most distressed. Any other inclusion would be a serious abdication of the constitutional duty of the State. Judged by the aforesaid standards we must hold that inclusion of the politically organized classes (such as Jats) in the list of backward classes mainly, if not solely, on the basis that on same parameters other groups who have fared better have been so included cannot be affirmed. 55. For the various reasons indicated above, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Union Government that Jats in the 9 (nine) States in question is a backward community so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes for the States concerned. The view taken by the NCBC to the contrary is adequately supported by good and acceptable reasons which furnished a sound and reasonable basis for further consequential action on the part of the Union Government. In the above situation we cannot hold the notification dated 4.3.2014 to be justified.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]30. Apart from the aforesaid eight reports, fifty one representations in favour of inclusion of Jats in the Central Lists and fifty eight representations against such inclusion received by the NCBC were also forwarded to the ICSSR. On receipt of the report of ICSSR, the summary of which has been indicated above, the Commission on an extensive study of the same and on a further detailed examination of the eight specific reports which were referred to it by the Group of Ministers carried out a State-wise analysis of the aforesaid materials.The NCBC had evolved a set of guidelines, criteria, formats and parameters against which all claims for inclusion as an other backward class are required to be considered. The said parameters were evolved on the basis of the Mandal Commission Report and the judgment in Indra Sawhney. 11 indicators under three broad heads i.e. social, economic and educational, details of which are indicated below, were identified.Relative weight-age to each of the parameters under the aforesaid three broad heads is to be in the proportion of 3:2:1. The Justice K.C. Gupta Commission however followed 12 Social indicators, 7 Educational indicators and 5 Economic indicators. That apart, according to the Commission, backwardness that was required to be determined, is primarily social backwardness which, in turn, depended on how the other castes/classes perceived whether the Jats were socially backward or not. Justice K.C. Gupta Commission did not proceed in the matter from the aforesaid perspective. Further in its report the NCBC found that indicators like Infant Mortality Rate, Maternal Mortality Rate, Deliveries at Home etc. had been considered to determine social backwardness. Such data, according to the NCBC, are actually Public Health Statistics and are wholly irrelevant for determination of social backwardness.Insofar as education is concerned, though the literacy rate is high i.e. 85.7% as against 83.7% for the general population, the level of education is mainly high school and drop-out at school level is very high. The economic standard of the Jat community was, however, found to be relatively better. The employment in the government jobs, however, according to the report, was quite low. Only 2.4% Jats engaged in high-end services while 19.1% Jats are engaged in low-end services likeDTC drivers, teachers in primary school etc.The NCBC took into account that the claim of the Jats for inclusion in the State List of OBCs in Himachal Pradesh had been differently considered at different points of time by the State Commission itself. While the State Commission had rejected the said claim in the year 1999 and its recommendations had been accepted by the State Government in the year 2000, the Report of the State Commission prepared in October 2002 recommended inclusion of the Jats who, accordingly, came to be included in the State List. From the Report of the NCBC it appears that a public hearing was conducted by the Commission in Shimla on 17.08.2011 and on the basis of what had transpired and also upon consideration of the Report of the State Commission prepared in October 2002, the NCBC decided to keep the matter pending. No compulsive material, according to the NCBC, was laid before it in the course of the present exercise so as to enable a recommendation in favour of the Jats of Himachal Pradesh to be made by it.The NCBC in its report dated 28.11.1997 had recommended the inclusion of Jats (excluding Dholpur and Bharatpur districts) in the Central List of other backward classes. On the basis of the recommendation of the NCBC, the Government of India had issued a Notification dated 27.10.1999 to the above effect. Following the said Notification, the State Government had also issued a Notification including Jats in the State List of other backward classes (excluding the two districts). Thereafter, the State Commission recommended for the removal of the area restriction of the Jats in the two districts which was also accepted by the Government of Rajasthan and a Notification dated 10.01.2000 was issued. It appears that in the course of survey undertaken by ICSSR, the report of the State Commission for OBCs was not made available. In the absence of the said Report, a study sponsored by the State Government and conducted by the Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, was considered. On the basis of the findings recorded by the ICSSR in its report, (earlier extracted), the Jats were found to be better off in regard to ownership of land though in respect of literacy rate and representation in Government service they were found to be marginally lower than Ahirs, Vishnois and Charans but better than rest of the OBCs. In the aforesaid backdrop the NCBC came to the conclusion that on the basis of the materials available as well as what had been revealed in the course of the the public hearings conducted on 10.02.2014 and 13.02.2014preponderance of evidence adduced by those speaking against the motion was much more than those speakingUnder these circumstances the NCBC did not find any reason to interfere with its earlier order issued on the subject.The State Backward Classes Commission of the State of Madhya Pradesh undertook a study of Jat Community in the districts of Dewas and Hoshangabad in the year 1994. The findings of the study had indicated that the Jats considered themselves equal to the Rajputs;political situation is veryand so is their social status. The State Commission therefore did not recommend the inclusion of the Jats in the State List of OBCs. The said recommendation was approved by the State Government on 21.12.1999. Thereafter, on account of the representations received by the State Commission, another study was conducted in January 2002 in a single district of the State i.e.district. Based on the aforesaid study, which the NCBC found to be cursory, the Jats came to be included in the State List. The aforesaid materials failed to convince the NCBC that it would be justified to include the Jats in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.The Jat Hindus of 4 districts of Bihar and Jat Muslims in 5 districts are included in the State List of Other Backward Classes. In the report of the ICSSR it has been mentioned that the recommendation of the State Commission is based on information received through questionnaire (number not indicated) and not on the basis of any household survey. Considering the materials made available to it, the NCBC came to the conclusion that the recommendation of the State Commission was based on awithout any formal survey or study. Furthermore, according to the NCBC nothing was revealed in the course of the public hearings to justify the inclusion of Jats of Bihar in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.No separate report was prepared for Uttarakhand by the State Commission and the Jats in the State came to be included in the State List of OBCs merely because the State of Uttarakhand had accepted the list of OBCs in the State List of Uttar Pradesh. In the absence of an independent survey and information, the claims of the Jats of Uttarakhand for inclusion in the Central List had been negatived by the NCBC particularly when it had recommended that the claims of the Jats in the State of U.P. be rejected.The Jat Muslims were included in the Central List of OBCs way back in the year 1993 but the Jat Hindus had not been so included either in the State List or the Central List. The cases of Jat Hindus in Gujarat were considered by the NCBC in the year 2011 but in the absence of relevant information its decision was deferred till the report of the ICSSR is received. The said report of the ICSSR prepared on the basis of the literature survey mentions (as noted and extracted above) that there is lack of information on the parameters (social, educational and economic) specified by the NCBC. In these circumstances, the claim of the Jats in Gujarat was not recommended by the NCBC in its report dated 26.2.2014.The Jat Muslims were included in the Central List of OBCs way back in the year 1993 but the Jat Hindus had not been so included either in the State List or the Central List. The cases of Jat Hindus in Gujarat were considered by the NCBC in the year 2011 but in the absence of relevant information its decision was deferred till the report of the ICSSR is received. The said report of the ICSSR prepared on the basis of the literature survey mentions (as noted and extracted above) that there is lack of information on the parameters (social, educational and economic) specified by the NCBC. In these circumstances, the claim of the Jats in Gujarat was not recommended by the NCBC in its report dated 26.2.2014.In so far as Haryana is concerned, the test adopted appears to be educational backwardness. Similarly for the NCT of Delhi also, educational backwardness has been taken into account as the determining factor for inclusion of Jats along with the fact that the Jats are behind the Gujars who are already included in the Central Lists of OBCs. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the test appears to be educational backwardness; same is the position with regard to Rajasthan. Though the States of M.P., Gujarat and Bihar have also been included in the Central Lists of OBCs by impugned notification, no apparent consideration of the cases of these States is reflected in the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting dated 2nd March, 2014. Of course, the Cabinet is not expected to record the manner of its consideration of each of the States but when it is done so for some of the States, the absence of any mention of the other States would be a strong basis to conclude that the States that do not find any mention in the Minutes, in fact, did not receive the consideration of the Cabinet, at all.In so far as the contemporaneous report for the State of Haryana is concerned, the discussion that has preceded indicate adequate and good reasons for the view taken by the NCBC in respect of the said Report and not to accept the findings contained therein. The same would hardly require any further reiteration.For the various reasons indicated above, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Union Government that Jats in the 9 (nine) States in question is a backward community so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes for the States concerned. The view taken by the NCBC to the contrary is adequately supported by good and acceptable reasons which furnished a sound and reasonable basis for further consequential action on the part of the Union Government. In the above situation we cannot hold the notification dated 4.3.2014 to be justified.Apart from the aforesaid eight reports, fifty one representations in favour of inclusion of Jats in the Central Lists and fifty eight representations against such inclusion received by the NCBC were also forwarded to the ICSSR. On receipt of the report of ICSSR, the summary of which has been indicated above, the Commission on an extensive study of the same and on a further detailed examination of the eight specific reports which were referred to it by the Group of Ministers carried out a State-wise analysis of the aforesaid materials.The NCBC had evolved a set of guidelines, criteria, formats and parameters against which all claims for inclusion as an other backward class are required to be considered. The said parameters were evolved on the basis of the Mandal Commission Report and the judgment in Indra Sawhney. 11 indicators under three broad heads i.e. social, economic and educational, details of which are indicated below, were identified.e weight-age to each of the parameters under the aforesaid three broad heads is to be in the proportion of 3:2:1. The Justice K.C. Gupta Commission however followed 12 Social indicators, 7 Educational indicators and 5 Economic indicators. That apart, according to the Commission, backwardness that was required to be determined, is primarily social backwardness which, in turn, depended on how the other castes/classes perceived whether the Jats were socially backward or not. Justice K.C. Gupta Commission did not proceed in the matter from the aforesaid perspective. Further in its report the NCBC found that indicators like Infant Mortality Rate, Maternal Mortality Rate, Deliveries at Home etc. had been considered to determine social backwardness. Such data, according to the NCBC, are actually Public Health Statistics and are wholly irrelevant for determination of social backwardness.r as education is concerned, though the literacy rate is high i.e. 85.7% as against 83.7% for the general population, the level of education is mainly high school and drop-out at school level is very high. The economic standard of the Jat community was, however, found to be relatively better. The employment in the government jobs, however, according to the report, was quite low. Only 2.4% Jats engaged in high-end services while 19.1% Jats are engaged in low-end services likeC drivers, teachers in primary school etc.The NCBC took into account that the claim of the Jats for inclusion in the State List of OBCs in Himachal Pradesh had been differently considered at different points of time by the State Commission itself. While the State Commission had rejected the said claim in the year 1999 and its recommendations had been accepted by the State Government in the year 2000, the Report of the State Commission prepared in October 2002 recommended inclusion of the Jats who, accordingly, came to be included in the State List. From the Report of the NCBC it appears that a public hearing was conducted by the Commission in Shimla on 17.08.2011 and on the basis of what had transpired and also upon consideration of the Report of the State Commission prepared in October 2002, the NCBC decided to keep the matter pending. No compulsive material, according to the NCBC, was laid before it in the course of the present exercise so as to enable a recommendation in favour of the Jats of Himachal Pradesh to be made by it.The NCBC in its report dated 28.11.1997 had recommended the inclusion of Jats (excluding Dholpur and Bharatpur districts) in the Central List of other backward classes. On the basis of the recommendation of the NCBC, the Government of India had issued a Notification dated 27.10.1999 to the above effect. Following the said Notification, the State Government had also issued a Notification including Jats in the State List of other backward classes (excluding the two districts). Thereafter, the State Commission recommended for the removal of the area restriction of the Jats in the two districts which was also accepted by the Government of Rajasthan and a Notification dated 10.01.2000 was issued. It appears that in the course of survey undertaken by ICSSR, the report of the State Commission for OBCs was not made available. In the absence of the said Report, a study sponsored by the State Government and conducted by the Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, was considered. On the basis of the findings recorded by the ICSSR in its report, (earlier extracted), the Jats were found to be better off in regard to ownership of land though in respect of literacy rate and representation in Government service they were found to be marginally lower than Ahirs, Vishnois and Charans but better than rest of the OBCs. In the aforesaid backdrop the NCBC came to the conclusion that on the basis of the materials available as well as what had been revealed in the course of the the public hearings conducted on 10.02.2014 and 13.02.2014e of evidence adduced by those speaking against the motion was much more than those speakingr these circumstances the NCBC did not find any reason to interfere with its earlier order issued on the subject.The State Backward Classes Commission of the State of Madhya Pradesh undertook a study of Jat Community in the districts of Dewas and Hoshangabad in the year 1994. The findings of the study had indicated that the Jats considered themselves equal to the Rajputs;l situation is veryand so is their social status. The State Commission therefore did not recommend the inclusion of the Jats in the State List of OBCs. The said recommendation was approved by the State Government on 21.12.1999. Thereafter, on account of the representations received by the State Commission, another study was conducted in January 2002 in a single district of the State i.e.. Based on the aforesaid study, which the NCBC found to be cursory, the Jats came to be included in the State List. The aforesaid materials failed to convince the NCBC that it would be justified to include the Jats in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.The Jat Hindus of 4 districts of Bihar and Jat Muslims in 5 districts are included in the State List of Other Backward Classes. In the report of the ICSSR it has been mentioned that the recommendation of the State Commission is based on information received through questionnaire (number not indicated) and not on the basis of any household survey. Considering the materials made available to it, the NCBC came to the conclusion that the recommendation of the State Commission was based on at any formal survey or study. Furthermore, according to the NCBC nothing was revealed in the course of the public hearings to justify the inclusion of Jats of Bihar in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.o separate report was prepared for Uttarakhand by the State Commission and the Jats in the State came to be included in the State List of OBCs merely because the State of Uttarakhand had accepted the list of OBCs in the State List of Uttar Pradesh. In the absence of an independent survey and information, the claims of the Jats of Uttarakhand for inclusion in the Central List had been negatived by the NCBC particularly when it had recommended that the claims of the Jats in the State of U.P. be rejected.The Jat Muslims were included in the Central List of OBCs way back in the year 1993 but the Jat Hindus had not been so included either in the State List or the Central List. The cases of Jat Hindus in Gujarat were considered by the NCBC in the year 2011 but in the absence of relevant information its decision was deferred till the report of the ICSSR is received. The said report of the ICSSR prepared on the basis of the literature survey mentions (as noted and extracted above) that there is lack of information on the parameters (social, educational and economic) specified by the NCBC. In these circumstances, the claim of the Jats in Gujarat was not recommended by the NCBC in its report dated 26.2.2014.The Jat Muslims were included in the Central List of OBCs way back in the year 1993 but the Jat Hindus had not been so included either in the State List or the Central List. The cases of Jat Hindus in Gujarat were considered by the NCBC in the year 2011 but in the absence of relevant information its decision was deferred till the report of the ICSSR is received. The said report of the ICSSR prepared on the basis of the literature survey mentions (as noted and extracted above) that there is lack of information on the parameters (social, educational and economic) specified by the NCBC. In these circumstances, the claim of the Jats in Gujarat was not recommended by the NCBC in its report dated 26.2.2014.In so far as Haryana is concerned, the test adopted appears to be educational backwardness. Similarly for the NCT of Delhi also, educational backwardness has been taken into account as the determining factor for inclusion of Jats along with the fact that the Jats are behind the Gujars who are already included in the Central Lists of OBCs. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the test appears to be educational backwardness; same is the position with regard to Rajasthan. Though the States of M.P., Gujarat and Bihar have also been included in the Central Lists of OBCs by impugned notification, no apparent consideration of the cases of these States is reflected in the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting dated 2nd March, 2014. Of course, the Cabinet is not expected to record the manner of its consideration of each of the States but when it is done so for some of the States, the absence of any mention of the other States would be a strong basis to conclude that the States that do not find any mention in the Minutes, in fact, did not receive the consideration of the Cabinet, at all.In so far as the contemporaneous report for the State of Haryana is concerned, the discussion that has preceded indicate adequate and good reasons for the view taken by the NCBC in respect of the said Report and not to accept the findings contained therein. The same would hardly require any further reiteration.r the various reasons indicated above, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Union Government that Jats in the 9 (nine) States in question is a backward community so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes for the States concerned. The view taken by the NCBC to the contrary is adequately supported by good and acceptable reasons which furnished a sound and reasonable basis for further consequential action on the part of the Union Government. In the above situation we cannot hold the notification dated 4.3.2014 to be justified.Apart from the aforesaid eight reports, fifty one representations in favour of inclusion of Jats in the Central Lists and fifty eight representations against such inclusion received by the NCBC were also forwarded to the ICSSR. On receipt of the report of ICSSR, the summary of which has been indicated above, the Commission on an extensive study of the same and on a further detailed examination of the eight specific reports which were referred to it by the Group of Ministers carried out a State-wise analysis of the aforesaid materials.The NCBC had evolved a set of guidelines, criteria, formats and parameters against which all claims for inclusion as an other backward class are required to be considered. The said parameters were evolved on the basis of the Mandal Commission Report and the judgment in Indra Sawhney. 11 indicators under three broad heads i.e. social, economic and educational, details of which are indicated below, were identified.e weight-age to each of the parameters under the aforesaid three broad heads is to be in the proportion of 3:2:1. The Justice K.C. Gupta Commission however followed 12 Social indicators, 7 Educational indicators and 5 Economic indicators. That apart, according to the Commission, backwardness that was required to be determined, is primarily social backwardness which, in turn, depended on how the other castes/classes perceived whether the Jats were socially backward or not. Justice K.C. Gupta Commission did not proceed in the matter from the aforesaid perspective. Further in its report the NCBC found that indicators like Infant Mortality Rate, Maternal Mortality Rate, Deliveries at Home etc. had been considered to determine social backwardness. Such data, according to the NCBC, are actually Public Health Statistics and are wholly irrelevant for determination of social backwardness.r as education is concerned, though the literacy rate is high i.e. 85.7% as against 83.7% for the general population, the level of education is mainly high school and drop-out at school level is very high. The economic standard of the Jat community was, however, found to be relatively better. The employment in the government jobs, however, according to the report, was quite low. Only 2.4% Jats engaged in high-end services while 19.1% Jats are engaged in low-end services likeC drivers, teachers in primary school etc.The NCBC took into account that the claim of the Jats for inclusion in the State List of OBCs in Himachal Pradesh had been differently considered at different points of time by the State Commission itself. While the State Commission had rejected the said claim in the year 1999 and its recommendations had been accepted by the State Government in the year 2000, the Report of the State Commission prepared in October 2002 recommended inclusion of the Jats who, accordingly, came to be included in the State List. From the Report of the NCBC it appears that a public hearing was conducted by the Commission in Shimla on 17.08.2011 and on the basis of what had transpired and also upon consideration of the Report of the State Commission prepared in October 2002, the NCBC decided to keep the matter pending. No compulsive material, according to the NCBC, was laid before it in the course of the present exercise so as to enable a recommendation in favour of the Jats of Himachal Pradesh to be made by it.The NCBC in its report dated 28.11.1997 had recommended the inclusion of Jats (excluding Dholpur and Bharatpur districts) in the Central List of other backward classes. On the basis of the recommendation of the NCBC, the Government of India had issued a Notification dated 27.10.1999 to the above effect. Following the said Notification, the State Government had also issued a Notification including Jats in the State List of other backward classes (excluding the two districts). Thereafter, the State Commission recommended for the removal of the area restriction of the Jats in the two districts which was also accepted by the Government of Rajasthan and a Notification dated 10.01.2000 was issued. It appears that in the course of survey undertaken by ICSSR, the report of the State Commission for OBCs was not made available. In the absence of the said Report, a study sponsored by the State Government and conducted by the Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, was considered. On the basis of the findings recorded by the ICSSR in its report, (earlier extracted), the Jats were found to be better off in regard to ownership of land though in respect of literacy rate and representation in Government service they were found to be marginally lower than Ahirs, Vishnois and Charans but better than rest of the OBCs. In the aforesaid backdrop the NCBC came to the conclusion that on the basis of the materials available as well as what had been revealed in the course of the the public hearings conducted on 10.02.2014 and 13.02.2014e of evidence adduced by those speaking against the motion was much more than those speakingr these circumstances the NCBC did not find any reason to interfere with its earlier order issued on the subject.The State Backward Classes Commission of the State of Madhya Pradesh undertook a study of Jat Community in the districts of Dewas and Hoshangabad in the year 1994. The findings of the study had indicated that the Jats considered themselves equal to the Rajputs;l situation is veryand so is their social status. The State Commission therefore did not recommend the inclusion of the Jats in the State List of OBCs. The said recommendation was approved by the State Government on 21.12.1999. Thereafter, on account of the representations received by the State Commission, another study was conducted in January 2002 in a single district of the State i.e.. Based on the aforesaid study, which the NCBC found to be cursory, the Jats came to be included in the State List. The aforesaid materials failed to convince the NCBC that it would be justified to include the Jats in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.The Jat Hindus of 4 districts of Bihar and Jat Muslims in 5 districts are included in the State List of Other Backward Classes. In the report of the ICSSR it has been mentioned that the recommendation of the State Commission is based on information received through questionnaire (number not indicated) and not on the basis of any household survey. Considering the materials made available to it, the NCBC came to the conclusion that the recommendation of the State Commission was based on at any formal survey or study. Furthermore, according to the NCBC nothing was revealed in the course of the public hearings to justify the inclusion of Jats of Bihar in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.o separate report was prepared for Uttarakhand by the State Commission and the Jats in the State came to be included in the State List of OBCs merely because the State of Uttarakhand had accepted the list of OBCs in the State List of Uttar Pradesh. In the absence of an independent survey and information, the claims of the Jats of Uttarakhand for inclusion in the Central List had been negatived by the NCBC particularly when it had recommended that the claims of the Jats in the State of U.P. be rejected.The Jat Muslims were included in the Central List of OBCs way back in the year 1993 but the Jat Hindus had not been so included either in the State List or the Central List. The cases of Jat Hindus in Gujarat were considered by the NCBC in the year 2011 but in the absence of relevant information its decision was deferred till the report of the ICSSR is received. The said report of the ICSSR prepared on the basis of the literature survey mentions (as noted and extracted above) that there is lack of information on the parameters (social, educational and economic) specified by the NCBC. In these circumstances, the claim of the Jats in Gujarat was not recommended by the NCBC in its report dated 26.2.2014.The Jat Muslims were included in the Central List of OBCs way back in the year 1993 but the Jat Hindus had not been so included either in the State List or the Central List. The cases of Jat Hindus in Gujarat were considered by the NCBC in the year 2011 but in the absence of relevant information its decision was deferred till the report of the ICSSR is received. The said report of the ICSSR prepared on the basis of the literature survey mentions (as noted and extracted above) that there is lack of information on the parameters (social, educational and economic) specified by the NCBC. In these circumstances, the claim of the Jats in Gujarat was not recommended by the NCBC in its report dated 26.2.2014.In so far as Haryana is concerned, the test adopted appears to be educational backwardness. Similarly for the NCT of Delhi also, educational backwardness has been taken into account as the determining factor for inclusion of Jats along with the fact that the Jats are behind the Gujars who are already included in the Central Lists of OBCs. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the test appears to be educational backwardness; same is the position with regard to Rajasthan. Though the States of M.P., Gujarat and Bihar have also been included in the Central Lists of OBCs by impugned notification, no apparent consideration of the cases of these States is reflected in the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting dated 2nd March, 2014. Of course, the Cabinet is not expected to record the manner of its consideration of each of the States but when it is done so for some of the States, the absence of any mention of the other States would be a strong basis to conclude that the States that do not find any mention in the Minutes, in fact, did not receive the consideration of the Cabinet, at all.In so far as the contemporaneous report for the State of Haryana is concerned, the discussion that has preceded indicate adequate and good reasons for the view taken by the NCBC in respect of the said Report and not to accept the findings contained therein. The same would hardly require any further reiteration.r the various reasons indicated above, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Union Government that Jats in the 9 (nine) States in question is a backward community so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes for the States concerned. The view taken by the NCBC to the contrary is adequately supported by good and acceptable reasons which furnished a sound and reasonable basis for further consequential action on the part of the Union Government. In the above situation we cannot hold the notification dated 4.3.2014 to be justified.Apart from the aforesaid eight reports, fifty one representations in favour of inclusion of Jats in the Central Lists and fifty eight representations against such inclusion received by the NCBC were also forwarded to the ICSSR. On receipt of the report of ICSSR, the summary of which has been indicated above, the Commission on an extensive study of the same and on a further detailed examination of the eight specific reports which were referred to it by the Group of Ministers carried out a State-wise analysis of the aforesaid materials.The NCBC had evolved a set of guidelines, criteria, formats and parameters against which all claims for inclusion as an other backward class are required to be considered. The said parameters were evolved on the basis of the Mandal Commission Report and the judgment in Indra Sawhney. 11 indicators under three broad heads i.e. social, economic and educational, details of which are indicated below, were identified.e weight-age to each of the parameters under the aforesaid three broad heads is to be in the proportion of 3:2:1. The Justice K.C. Gupta Commission however followed 12 Social indicators, 7 Educational indicators and 5 Economic indicators. That apart, according to the Commission, backwardness that was required to be determined, is primarily social backwardness which, in turn, depended on how the other castes/classes perceived whether the Jats were socially backward or not. Justice K.C. Gupta Commission did not proceed in the matter from the aforesaid perspective. Further in its report the NCBC found that indicators like Infant Mortality Rate, Maternal Mortality Rate, Deliveries at Home etc. had been considered to determine social backwardness. Such data, according to the NCBC, are actually Public Health Statistics and are wholly irrelevant for determination of social backwardness.r as education is concerned, though the literacy rate is high i.e. 85.7% as against 83.7% for the general population, the level of education is mainly high school and drop-out at school level is very high. The economic standard of the Jat community was, however, found to be relatively better. The employment in the government jobs, however, according to the report, was quite low. Only 2.4% Jats engaged in high-end services while 19.1% Jats are engaged in low-end services likeC drivers, teachers in primary school etc.The NCBC took into account that the claim of the Jats for inclusion in the State List of OBCs in Himachal Pradesh had been differently considered at different points of time by the State Commission itself. While the State Commission had rejected the said claim in the year 1999 and its recommendations had been accepted by the State Government in the year 2000, the Report of the State Commission prepared in October 2002 recommended inclusion of the Jats who, accordingly, came to be included in the State List. From the Report of the NCBC it appears that a public hearing was conducted by the Commission in Shimla on 17.08.2011 and on the basis of what had transpired and also upon consideration of the Report of the State Commission prepared in October 2002, the NCBC decided to keep the matter pending. No compulsive material, according to the NCBC, was laid before it in the course of the present exercise so as to enable a recommendation in favour of the Jats of Himachal Pradesh to be made by it.The NCBC in its report dated 28.11.1997 had recommended the inclusion of Jats (excluding Dholpur and Bharatpur districts) in the Central List of other backward classes. On the basis of the recommendation of the NCBC, the Government of India had issued a Notification dated 27.10.1999 to the above effect. Following the said Notification, the State Government had also issued a Notification including Jats in the State List of other backward classes (excluding the two districts). Thereafter, the State Commission recommended for the removal of the area restriction of the Jats in the two districts which was also accepted by the Government of Rajasthan and a Notification dated 10.01.2000 was issued. It appears that in the course of survey undertaken by ICSSR, the report of the State Commission for OBCs was not made available. In the absence of the said Report, a study sponsored by the State Government and conducted by the Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, was considered. On the basis of the findings recorded by the ICSSR in its report, (earlier extracted), the Jats were found to be better off in regard to ownership of land though in respect of literacy rate and representation in Government service they were found to be marginally lower than Ahirs, Vishnois and Charans but better than rest of the OBCs. In the aforesaid backdrop the NCBC came to the conclusion that on the basis of the materials available as well as what had been revealed in the course of the the public hearings conducted on 10.02.2014 and 13.02.2014e of evidence adduced by those speaking against the motion was much more than those speakingr these circumstances the NCBC did not find any reason to interfere with its earlier order issued on the subject.The State Backward Classes Commission of the State of Madhya Pradesh undertook a study of Jat Community in the districts of Dewas and Hoshangabad in the year 1994. The findings of the study had indicated that the Jats considered themselves equal to the Rajputs;l situation is veryand so is their social status. The State Commission therefore did not recommend the inclusion of the Jats in the State List of OBCs. The said recommendation was approved by the State Government on 21.12.1999. Thereafter, on account of the representations received by the State Commission, another study was conducted in January 2002 in a single district of the State i.e.. Based on the aforesaid study, which the NCBC found to be cursory, the Jats came to be included in the State List. The aforesaid materials failed to convince the NCBC that it would be justified to include the Jats in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.The Jat Hindus of 4 districts of Bihar and Jat Muslims in 5 districts are included in the State List of Other Backward Classes. In the report of the ICSSR it has been mentioned that the recommendation of the State Commission is based on information received through questionnaire (number not indicated) and not on the basis of any household survey. Considering the materials made available to it, the NCBC came to the conclusion that the recommendation of the State Commission was based on at any formal survey or study. Furthermore, according to the NCBC nothing was revealed in the course of the public hearings to justify the inclusion of Jats of Bihar in the Central List of Other Backward Classes.o separate report was prepared for Uttarakhand by the State Commission and the Jats in the State came to be included in the State List of OBCs merely because the State of Uttarakhand had accepted the list of OBCs in the State List of Uttar Pradesh. In the absence of an independent survey and information, the claims of the Jats of Uttarakhand for inclusion in the Central List had been negatived by the NCBC particularly when it had recommended that the claims of the Jats in the State of U.P. be rejected.The Jat Muslims were included in the Central List of OBCs way back in the year 1993 but the Jat Hindus had not been so included either in the State List or the Central List. The cases of Jat Hindus in Gujarat were considered by the NCBC in the year 2011 but in the absence of relevant information its decision was deferred till the report of the ICSSR is received. The said report of the ICSSR prepared on the basis of the literature survey mentions (as noted and extracted above) that there is lack of information on the parameters (social, educational and economic) specified by the NCBC. In these circumstances, the claim of the Jats in Gujarat was not recommended by the NCBC in its report dated 26.2.2014.The Jat Muslims were included in the Central List of OBCs way back in the year 1993 but the Jat Hindus had not been so included either in the State List or the Central List. The cases of Jat Hindus in Gujarat were considered by the NCBC in the year 2011 but in the absence of relevant information its decision was deferred till the report of the ICSSR is received. The said report of the ICSSR prepared on the basis of the literature survey mentions (as noted and extracted above) that there is lack of information on the parameters (social, educational and economic) specified by the NCBC. In these circumstances, the claim of the Jats in Gujarat was not recommended by the NCBC in its report dated 26.2.2014.In so far as Haryana is concerned, the test adopted appears to be educational backwardness. Similarly for the NCT of Delhi also, educational backwardness has been taken into account as the determining factor for inclusion of Jats along with the fact that the Jats are behind the Gujars who are already included in the Central Lists of OBCs. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the test appears to be educational backwardness; same is the position with regard to Rajasthan. Though the States of M.P., Gujarat and Bihar have also been included in the Central Lists of OBCs by impugned notification, no apparent consideration of the cases of these States is reflected in the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting dated 2nd March, 2014. Of course, the Cabinet is not expected to record the manner of its consideration of each of the States but when it is done so for some of the States, the absence of any mention of the other States would be a strong basis to conclude that the States that do not find any mention in the Minutes, in fact, did not receive the consideration of the Cabinet, at all.In so far as the contemporaneous report for the State of Haryana is concerned, the discussion that has preceded indicate adequate and good reasons for the view taken by the NCBC in respect of the said Report and not to accept the findings contained therein. The same would hardly require any further reiteration.r the various reasons indicated above, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Union Government that Jats in the 9 (nine) States in question is a backward community so as to be entitled to inclusion in the Central Lists of Other Backward Classes for the States concerned. The view taken by the NCBC to the contrary is adequately supported by good and acceptable reasons which furnished a sound and reasonable basis for further consequential action on the part of the Union Government. In the above situation we cannot hold the notification dated 4.3.2014 to be justified.