Case: SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM MAHESHKUMAR SINGH AND ANR Vs. THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS

in CEIs located in the areas subsequently defined as the Specified north eastern region in the Amendment Act. 30. Once the two provisos were inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act by virtue of the Amendment Act, the general norms of reservation as laid down in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act had to be restricted in terms of the said provisos. While the first proviso deals with State seats, if any, in a CEI situated in tribal areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the second proviso addresses a situation where there are no State seats in a CEI and the seats reserved for the SC/ST candidates exceeds the percentage specified under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 (viz., 15% seats for SCs plus 7.5% for STs, totalling to 22.5% seats) or if the combined seats reserved for the SC and ST candidates exceeds the sum total of the percentage as specified under Clauses (i) and (ii). Two riders have also been dovetailed in the second proviso to Section 3, namely Clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a) of the second proviso, contemplates a situation where seats referred to in the second proviso are less than 50% of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Clause (b) provides for a situation where such seats are over 50% of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. In a situation contemplated in Clause (a) of the second proviso, a restriction has been imposed on the total percentage of seats required to be reserved for OBC candidates under Section 3(iii) of the Parent Act by limiting them to the balance seats available after factoring in the combined percentage of seats specified in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act, falling short of 50% of the annual permitted strength. But in circumstances contemplated in Clause (b), the Act recognizes the fact that no seats need be reserved for the OBC candidates under Clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. However, this is subject to the condition that the extent of reservation of seats for SC and ST candidates shall not be reduced when it comes to CEIs established in Specified north eastern region. This goes to demonstrate that the underlying intent of the Amendment Act was to secure a particular percentage of seats through reservation for a set of candidates and leave some space for capping of seats for OBC candidates, depending on the circumstances contemplated in Clauses (a) and (b) of the second proviso to the amended Section 3. 31. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 – University has clarified in its affidavit that prior to commencement of the Reservation Act, the prevalent percentage of reservation for ST and SC candidates was 31% and 2% respectively. Nothing to the contrary has been brought forth by the appellant. That being the position, we are in complete agreement with the findings returned in the impugned judgment that the respondent No. 1 – University was right in reverting back to the position obtaining immediately before the commencement of the Reservation Act by reserving seats in respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, pegged at 31%, 2% and 17% respectively which was in consonance with the Manipur State Reservation Policy. 32. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent No. 1 – University was under a mandate to follow the norms provided under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act while giving a complete go by to the provisos inserted in the said provision by virtue of the Amendment Act which, as per the learned counsel, could be applied only to determine the percentage of seats required to be reserved for OBC candidates, is devoid of merits and turned down. To our mind, the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in making the observation that the formulae for fixing the percentage of reservation for the SC and ST candidates and for determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for OBC candidates under the second proviso of Section 3, ought to be gathered from the same source and any other interpretation would lead to uncertainty. 33. To put it differently, the reference point of the period for determining the reservation quota for OBC candidates must be the same as that of the SC and ST candidates for the simple reason that for working out the reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessarily require one to find out in the first instance, as to what would be the difference between 50% of the annual permitted strength and the combined existing percentage for the SC and ST candidates, as obtained on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act. Both the issues are so interlaced that to determine the percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, one would have to undertake an exercise of determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for SC and ST candidates, all within the four corners of the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act. Any other interpretation sought to be assigned to the second proviso to Section 3 inserted post-amendment, would make the proviso itself unworkable and redundant and is, therefore, impermissible. Thus, we make it clear that the general rules of reservation have been encapsulated in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. But when it comes to CEIs established in States falling under the definition of Specified north eastern region, categorized in Section 2(ia) introduced by the Amendment Act, the two new provisos appended to Section 3 would govern the norms of reservation which prescribes a different criteria, vis-à-vis the main provision and would apply irrespective of whether they are situated in areas covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]24. It is noteworthy that the Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya did discuss the 234th Report at page 24 of the judgment dated 20th April, 2017, in the context of the reasons offered by the learned Single Judge in the earlier judgment dated 1st September, 2015 wherein it was held that by an inference drawn from the said Report, one could determine the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates for purposes of applying the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act post- amendment, but the appellate court was not persuaded by the said logic.25. It is no longer res integra that Reports and recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committees/Commissions that precede enactment of a Statute can be used as external aids to interpret the meaning of ambiguous words in a statutory provision wherever considered necessary. It can also be taken note of as to the existence of a historical fact. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that such Reports are not decisive and a Court is free to arrive at a different conclusion based on its own findings and other evidence produced by the parties. [Refer State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap (1974) 3 SCC 337,  R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) 2 SCC 183  and Kalpana Mehta and Others. v. Union of India and Others (2018) 7 SCC 1] . For our purpose, we do not intend to take notice of the said Report with an idea of determining the extent of reservation for SC and ST candidates in the light of the amendment by way of insertion to Section 3 of the Parent Act. However, the said Report can be treated as a useful tool to fathom the background in which the Amendment Act was introduced and throw light on what had weighed with the legislating authorities in proposing the amendments to the Reservation Act.27. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellants cannot be heard to state that the amendments brought about in the Reservation Act by legislating the Amendment Act were only directed towards tribal States covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and cannot be made applicable to the State of Manipur, even though the definition of the expression Specified north eastern region introduced by virtue of the amended Section 2(ia) encompasses the State of Manipur. Nor is this Court persuaded by the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the second proviso was inserted in Section 3 only to make sure that the percentage of reservation provided for in Section 3(i) and (ii) of the Parent Act would remain untouched. Accepting such a submission would tantamount to negating the very aim and object of the Amendment Act, which was enacted only to resolve the difficulties that were being faced by the CEIs in implementing the Reservation Act when it came to the North Eastern States, including the State of Manipur. The two provisos inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act are nothing but a recognition of the demography of the North Eastern States covered under the umbrella of Specified north eastern region which have a substantial tribal population.28. It is in the light of the aforesaid factors that it has been held in the impugned judgment that the respondent No. 1 – University was correct in calculating the extent of reservation of seats in making admissions to different courses, viz., 31% for ST candidates, 2% for SC candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in line with the mandate of the Amendment Act.29. It can be understood from the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit that on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 – University had been reserving 2% seats for SC and 31% for ST candidates for purposes of admission.It has been strenuously argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the meaning ascribed to the words date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the 2006 Act, used in Clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 3 should be taken to mean the date just before enactment of the Amendment Act, i.e., a roll back to the situation as was prevalent when the Reservation Act had come into force viz. 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs and 27% for OBC candidates.In our opinion, any such interpretation would strike at the root of the Amendment Act which was legislated with the sole object of overcoming the ambiguities that had come to the fore on working out the warp and woof of the Reservation Act, namely, the inability to meet the aspirations of a large number of ST candidates looking for opportunities to gain entry in CEIs located in the areas subsequently defined as the Specified north eastern region in the Amendment Act.31. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 – University has clarified in its affidavit that prior to commencement of the Reservation Act, the prevalent percentage of reservation for ST and SC candidates was 31% and 2% respectively. Nothing to the contrary has been brought forth by the appellant. That being the position, we are in complete agreement with the findings returned in the impugned judgment that the respondent No. 1 – University was right in reverting back to the position obtaining immediately before the commencement of the Reservation Act by reserving seats in respect of ST, SC and OBC candidates, pegged at 31%, 2% and 17% respectively which was in consonance with the Manipur State Reservation Policy.32. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent No. 1 – University was under a mandate to follow the norms provided under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act while giving a complete go by to the provisos inserted in the said provision by virtue of the Amendment Act which, as per the learned counsel, could be applied only to determine the percentage of seats required to be reserved for OBC candidates, is devoid of merits and turned down. To our mind, the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in making the observation that the formulae for fixing the percentage of reservation for the SC and ST candidates and for determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for OBC candidates under the second proviso of Section 3, ought to be gathered from the same source and any other interpretation would lead to uncertainty.33. To put it differently, the reference point of the period for determining the reservation quota for OBC candidates must be the same as that of the SC and ST candidates for the simple reason that for working out the reservation quota for OBC candidates would necessarily require one to find out in the first instance, as to what would be the difference between 50% of the annual permitted strength and the combined existing percentage for the SC and ST candidates, as obtained on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Reservation Act. Both the issues are so interlaced that to determine the percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, one would have to undertake an exercise of determining the percentage of seats to be reserved for SC and ST candidates, all within the four corners of the second proviso inserted in Section 3 of the Parent Act. Any other interpretation sought to be assigned to the second proviso to Section 3 inserted post-amendment, would make the proviso itself unworkable and redundant and is, therefore, impermissible. Thus, we make it clear that the general rules of reservation have been encapsulated in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Parent Act. But when it comes to CEIs established in States falling under the definition of Specified north eastern region, categorized in Section 2(ia) introduced by the Amendment Act, the two new provisos appended to Section 3 would govern the norms of reservation which prescribes a different criteria, vis-à-vis the main provision and would apply irrespective of whether they are situated in areas covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution or not.