Skip to content
Home » Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh v. Manipur University

Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh v. Manipur University

Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 – Ss. 2 (b), 3 – Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012 – Annual Permitted Strength – Reservation of seats in Central Educational Institutions – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

After amendment of the Reservation Act, the University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC candidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in consonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act.

It is the contention of the appellants that the Amendment Act was legislated to ensure that reservation for SC and ST candidates as prescribed in Section 3 of the Parent Act, should not be reduced from the benchmark of 15% and 7.5% respectively. Rather, the Amendment Act contemplates that the percentage of reservation for SC and ST candidates earmarked in Section 3 of the Parent Act could be increased even to the detriment of the earmarked percentage of reservation for OBC candidates, to ensure that the overall limit of 50% reservation for SC and ST candidates taken collectively, is not disturbed in any manner.

Reports and recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committees / Commissions.

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.

Case Law Reference

  1. Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1
  2. R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183
  3. State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap, (1974) 3 SCC 337

Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34681 of 2017]

Hon’ble Ms.Justice Hima Kohli pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr.Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Her Ladyship.

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. M.B.R.S. Raju, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Mohammed Shahrukh, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mr. H.D. Dubey, Adv. Ms. Rajshi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Adv. Mr. Arun Nagar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR

Case Link : https://pdf.caselaw.in/sc/2022/01/1113/

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 2 Average: 5]