SC rejects plea to vacate stay on OBC quota

New Delhi, Apr 23: The Supreme Court today dismissed the Centre's application seeking to vacate the stay on providing 27 per cent reservation to OBCs in admission to Centrally-run educational institutions of higher studies.

In a major setback to the Centre, the apex court said it found no reason to vacate the stay imposed by its interim order on March 29 directing the government to keep on hold the implementation of 27 percent quota from the academic session 2007-08.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta in its order said, ''We have heard the learned counsel for the learned parties. We find no reason to interfere with our order dated March 29, 2007.''

With today's order OBC candidates aspiring for admission to educational institution of higher studies from the quota will now have to wait till the academic year 2008-2009. Earlier, Solicitor-General G E Vahanvati appearing for the Centre contended before the court that the reservation shall be provided only against increased number of seats and General category candidates shall not be affected at all. He also contended that in the present case factor of great social relevance was involved and it was only an interim order and not the final one and hence review petition cannot be filed.

The court however responded by saying that it was it was a final order so far as the academic session of 2007-08 in concerned and the court does not want the government to play the game first and frame the rules later.'' What we want is to frame rules first and play the game later.'' On the exclusion of creamy layer from the benefits of reservation, the court said the most deprived is one who is economically backward and not those who are socially and educationally backward.

Regarding the urgency shown by the government the court said " Mandal commission judgement came in 1992 and if you can wait for 15 years to bring the judgement to logical conclusion, you can wait for one year more." Senior counsel Harish Salve appearing for the petitioners challenging the reservation policy of the government heavily relied on Article 29(2) of the Constitution which lays down the moment tax payers money goes into any welfare scheme state cannot differentiate on the basis of caste, creed and religion.

He also contended that there was no change in circumstances between the date of impugned order and the date of filing of this application and it may be an emotive issue for the governemnt or for a particular segment of the society. This honorable court was concerned only with the constitutional validity of the impugned notification and it has nothing to do with the political fallout of the order.

One of the counsel quoted from the Centre's earlier affidavit that the first census was carried out in 1881 and next caste based census was carried out in 1931 i.e., after a gap of 50 years and now the same 1931 census is being made the basis of the reservation policies sought to be implemented in 2007.

The counsel also quoted from the Mandal commission judgement to emphasise that the OBC reservation did not apply to super-speciality courses and the government is providing reservation to OBCs in courses like IIT,IIM and post graduate medical science courses which are nothing but super speciality courses.

Interestingly the government did not press its contention that the March 29 order was only advisory in nature. The next hearing of the case is on August 3. The court has however clarified that the stay is only for one year and there is no stay so far as the SC and STs are concerned.

The court repeatedly emphasised the concept of exclusion of creamy layer from the benefits of reservation and told the government that ''you cannot implement the Mandal case commission judgement partly.'' A nine- Judge Bench in Mandal commission case had given government Five years to phase out the policy of reservation as the same cannot be continued indefinitely. The court will also hear the arguments on the issue of referring the case to a constitutional bench as substantive issues of constitutional interpretion are involved in August.

UNI