REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2022

The State of Punjab …Appellant

Versus

Anshika Goyal and others …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2022

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 319-320 OF 2022

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order dated 26.07.2019 and 08.08.2019 passed by the

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.17248/2019

and CWP No. 18989 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the

said writ petitions and has directed the State to issue a fresh notification

providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist

1

affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-

minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab and further

directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management

quota seats as well and further directed that the fresh notification shall

also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental

Colleges, the State of Punjab has preferred the present appeals.

2.The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:

The State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Private Health Sciences

Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of fee and

making of Reservation) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006

Act’) for the regulation of admission, fixation of fee and making of

reservation in Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions in the

State of Punjab. Section 6 of the 2006 Act provides for reservation of

seats and as per the said Section, all private health sciences educational

institutions shall reserve seats for admission in open merit category and

management category, for advancement of socially and educationally

backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled

Tribes to such extent, as may be notified by the State Government in the

official gazette from time to time.

2.1The State of Punjab framed its Sports Policy in the year 2018

which provided that 3% reservation in admissions will be provided for

2

graded sports persons. Clause 10 of the said policy also provided that

the said Sports Policy shall prevail on all the Departments and

Organizations of Government of Punjab, however, if any other

department wishes to have specific policy, it will be finalised in

consultation with the Department of Sports. It appears that by order

dated 25.07.2019, a conscious decision was taken by the Government

of Punjab to provide 1% reservation for sports persons. The said order

was passed taking into consideration Clause 10 of the Sporty Policy,

2018.

2.2For the academic year 2018-19, the State Government issued

notification dated 6.2.2018 for admission in Medical/Dental Colleges.

Clause 16 of the said notification provided for reservation in Government

Medical/Dental Colleges and Clause 17 provided for admission to private

institutes. However, it appears that though 1% seats were reserved for

sports persons and the children/grand children of terrorist affected

persons so far as the State quota seats in Government Institutions are

concerned, similar reservation was not provided for admission to private

institutes even with respect to government quota seats in the private

institutes.

2.3 A bunch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court for

quashing Clause 17 of notification dated 6.2.2018 to the extent of not

3

providing the reservation for sports persons and children/grand children

of terrorist affected persons in the private institutes which as such were

provided for the State quota seats in government institutions.

2.4By judgment and order dated 23.08.2018, the High Court allowed

the said writ petitions partially and declared that reservation that is

applicable to Government institutes shall extend to the private institutes

as well. The judgment and order passed by the High Court in the case of

Bani Suri and others was challenged before this Court by way of a

special leave petition (civil) no.28491/2018 and this Court vide order

dated 12.11.2018 dismissed the said special leave petition by

specifically observing that the order passed by the High Court shall not

be treated as a precedent in any other case.

2.5Subsequently, for the academic year 2019-20, the State

Government issued a notification dated 6.6.2019, which subsequently

came to be modified vide corrigendum dated 11.07.2019. Clauses 15 &

16 provided for reservation in Government Medical/Dental Colleges as

well as admission to private institutes respectively. Clause 15 provided

for 1% reservation for sports persons; 1% reservation for children/grand

children of terrorist affected persons and 1% reservation for

children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons in the State quota

seats in government institutions. Clause 16 provided for 1% reservation

4

for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist affected persons,

children/grand children of Sikh riot affected persons and 1% for wards of

defence personnel so far as the State quota seats in private institutions

are concerned. However, no such reservation was provided for the

management quota seats.

2.6A bunch of writ petitions came to be filed before the High Court for

the academic year 2019-20 challenging the notification for (i) not

providing reservation for sports persons, children/grand children of

terrorist affected persons and children/grand children of Sikh riot affected

persons insofar as the management quota seats in private institutes are

concerned; and (ii) for providing 1% reservation for sports persons

insofar as the government Medical/Dental Colleges as well as the private

institutes, instead of 3% reservation for sports persons. By the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ

petitions and issued the following directions:

(a)The State is directed to issue a fresh notification

providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of

terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private

unaided non-minority Medical/Dental Institutions in the State of

Punjab. This reservation/quota shall apply to management

quota seats as well.

(b)The notification shall also provide for a sports quota of

3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges.

(c)While determining inter se merit of candidates

possessing the same sports gradation, only the NEET score

shall be considered.

5

(d)Implementation of the 10% quota for economically

weaker sections and the calculation thereof by the State of

Punjab is upheld.

2.7Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court in issuing the aforesaid

directions, more particularly directing the State to issue a fresh

notification providing for reservation/quota for sports persons,

children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected

persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental Institutions in

the State and directing to provide for a sports quota of 3% (instead of 1%

as fixed by the State Government) in Government Medical/Dental

Colleges, the State has preferred the present appeals.

3.We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the State of Punjab and Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners.

3.1Number of submissions have been made by Ms. Meenakshi Arora,

learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State on the High

Court issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide for

reservation/quota for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist

affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private unaided non-

minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State.

6

3.2It is vehemently submitted that no writ of mandamus can be issued

by the High Court directing the State to provide for reservation for the

particular class or category and it should be left to the wisdom of the

State Government. It is also the case on behalf of the State that Article

15(5) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision and it is

ultimately for the State to provide for reservation for a particular

class/category and no State can be compelled and/or no writ of

mandamus can be issued directing the State to provide for reservation

for a particular class or category. In support of her submission, learned

senior counsel has heavily relied upon the following decisions of this

Court:

(i)Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana

and others, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 477 (para 27);

(ii)Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India

and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare

Association and others, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 308 (para

26);

(iii)Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 113 (para 49); and

(iv)Mukesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttarakhand and

others, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 1 (paras 18 & 19)

3.3Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the State of Punjab has further submitted that even a writ of

mandamus issued by the High Court directing the State to provide 3%

reservation/quota for sports persons is also unsustainable. It is

7

submitted that a conscious policy decision was taken by the State

Government to provide only 1% reservation/quota for sports persons. It

is submitted that it is ultimately for the State Government considering the

facts situation in the State to provide the reservation/quota and what

percentage of reservation/quota should be there should be left to the

concerned State Government. In support of her above submission, she

has also relied upon the aforesaid decisions.

4.Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the original writ petitioners has submitted that the notification under

challenge before the High Court was for academic year 2019-20 and

pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, admissions have

been given implementing the impugned judgment and order passed by

the High Court, except providing reservation to the extent of 3% for

sports persons.

4.1It is further submitted that thereafter a fresh notification has been

issued for the academic year 2021-22 in which the State has provided

the reservation for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist

affected persons and Sikh riot affected persons to an extent of 1% each

with respect to the private institutes also. It is therefore submitted that as

such the issue in the present case has become academic. Therefore, it

is prayed to dispose of the appeals by keeping the question of law open.

8

4.2Now so far as the direction issued by the High Court directing the

State to provide 3% reservation/quota for sports persons in Government

Medical/Dental Colleges is concerned, Mr. Patwalia, learned Senior

Counsel has tried to support the same by submitting that when Sports

Policy, 2018 provided for 3% reservation for sports persons in

admissions in all government and private higher educational institutions

and universities including those of medical and technical education,

located in the State of Punjab, there was no reason for the State to

deviate from the same and provide for only 1% reservation/quota for

sports persons. It is therefore submitted that the High Court has rightly

directed to provide 3% reservation /quota for sports persons considering

the Sports Policy, 2018.

5.We have heard the learned senior counsel for the respective

parties at length.

By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has directed

to provide for reservation/quota to sports persons, children/grand

children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons for

admissions in the private institutes and more particularly the

management quota in the private institutes. The High Court has also

further directed to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sports persons in

all Government Medical/Dental Colleges.

9

6.Now so far as the directions issued by the High Court directing to

provide for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist

affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons and sports persons in all

private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State is

concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the said issue has

become academic, firstly on the ground that the issue before the High

Court and even before this Court was/is for the academic year 2019-20.

Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, admissions for the

academic year 2019-20 are already given as per the judgment of the

High Court except providing 3% reservation/quota for sports persons and

applying 1% reservation. This Court, vide order dated 27.08.2019,

passed the following interim order:

“Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General appearing on behalf

of the petitioners as well as Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. Issue fresh notice to the

unrepresented/unserved respondents. After hearing the matters at some

length, we deem it appropriate to have final hearing in the matter as main

question arises with regard to validity of classification made as to

Government seats and institutions seats for the purpose of reservation in

question. Fact remains other reservations have been applied to all seats in

private institutions. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the

parties and considering the decisions in “T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors.

Versus State of Karnataka & Ors.”, (2002)8 SCC 481 and “Gulshan

Prakash (DR.) & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Ors.”, (2010) 1 SCC 477,

without expressing any opinion on merits, we are of the view that there

shall not be a blanket stay on the order passed by the High Court.

However, the High Court has enhanced the sports quota from 1% to 3%.

That cannot be said to be appropriate as the Government has notified only

1% sports quota on horizontal business. The part of the impugned order

with respect to enhancing quota from 1% to 3% shall remain stayed till the

final decision by this Court. With respect to remaining part there shall be

no stay. 3 Counseling to take place by 7th September, 2019. Only 1%

10

reservation be implemented with respect to sports quota. Counseling be

held as per order passed by the High Court with other aspects.”

6.1Secondly, the State has now already provided the

reservation/quota for sports persons, children/grand children of terrorist

affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons even with respect to

admissions in the private institutes for the academic year 2021-22.

Therefore, the first issue, whether the High Court was right in issuing

directions directing the State to issue a fresh notification providing for 1%

reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected

persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private unaided non-minority

Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab including the

management quota seats has become academic and therefore we

dispose of the present appeals keeping the question of law open. As the

admissions are given for the academic year 2019-20 pursuant to the

interim order passed by this Court, we direct that the said admission shall

not be disturbed/affected. However, it is observed that we have not

entered into and/or considered any other dispute including whether the

admissions are made on the basis of merit or not. If anybody has any

individual grievance, in that case, it will be open for the aggrieved person

to take recourse to law.

7.Now so far as the directions issued by the High Court directing the

State to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sports persons, instead of

11

1% provided by the State is concerned, it appears from the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court that it has issued the said

direction considering the Sports Policy, 2018. It is true that as per clause

8.11(v), 3% reservation for sports persons has been provided. However,

it is to be noted that clause 10 permits/allows any other department to

have specific policy providing for reservation for sports persons other

than 3%. As observed hereinabove, thereafter the State Government

has issued an order dated 25.07.2019 providing for 1% reservation/quota

for sports persons. The said order has been issued and 1%

reservation/quota for sports persons is provided after taking into

consideration the Sports Policy, 2018. Therefore, a conscious policy

decision has been taken by the State Government to provide for only 1%

reservation/quota for sports persons. Therefore, the question posed for

the consideration of this Court is, whether the State Government’s action

taking a policy decision to prescribe a particular percentage of

reservation/quota for a particular category of persons, can be interfered

with by issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the State Government

to provide for a particular percentage of reservation for a particular

category of persons other than what has been provided in the policy

decision taken by the State Government.

12

8.While answering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of this Court

referred to hereinabove are required to be discussed.

a) In the case of Gulshan Prakash (supra), it was observed by

this Court that there cannot be any mandamus by the Court to

provide for a reservation for a particular community. In the case

before this Court, the State of Haryana did not provide any

reservation for SC/ST/backward community at the postgraduate

level. A conscious decision was taken by the State of Haryana not

to provide for reservation at the postgraduate level. The same was

challenged and to that this Court has observed that there cannot be

any mandamus by the Court as claimed. In the aforesaid decision, it

was further observed and held that Article 15(4) of the Constitution is

an enabling provision and the State Government is the best Judge

to grant reservation for SC/ST/backward categories at postgraduate

level. Any policy and the decision of the State not to make any

provision for reservation at postgraduate level suffers from no

infirmity. It was further observed that every State can take its own

decision with regard to reservation depending on various factors. At

this stage, it is to be noted that it was also submitted before this

Court that since the Government has decided to grant reservation

for SC/ST/backward class communities in admission at MBBS level,

13

i.e., undergraduate level and therefore the State has to provide for

reservation at postgraduate level also. To that, this Court observed

that since the Government had decided to grant reservation for

SC/ST/backward categories in admission at MBBS level, i.e.,

undergraduate level, it does not mean that it is bound to grant

reservation at the postgraduate level also.

b)In the case of Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare

Association and others (supra), while considering the issue of

providing reservation in favour of SC/ST category persons in the

promotion and when Articles 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India

were pressed into service, this Court observed and held that though

Articles 15 & 16 empower the State to take an affirmative action in

favour of the SC/ST category persons by making reservations for

them in the employment of the Union or the State, they are only

enabling provisions which permit the State to make provision for

reservation of these category of persons. It was further observed

that insofar as making of provisions for reservation in matters of

promotion to any class/classes of post is concerned, such a

provision can be made in favour of SC/ST category employees if in

the opinion of the State they are not adequately represented in

services under the State. It is observed that therefore power lies

14

with the State to make a provision but, at the same time, Courts

cannot issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily make such

a provision. In paragraph 26, it was observed and held as under:

“26. In the first instance, we make it clear that there is no dispute about

the constitutional position envisaged in Articles 15 and 16, insofar as

these provisions empower the State to take affirmative action in favour

of SC/ST category persons by making reservations for them in the

employment in the Union or the State (or for that matter, public

sector/authorities which are treated as State under Article 12 of the

Constitution). The laudable objective underlying these provisions is also

to be kept in mind while undertaking any exercise pertaining to the

issues touching upon the reservation of such SC/ST employees.

Further, such a reservation can not only be made at the entry level but

is permissible in the matters of promotions as well. At the same time, it

is also to be borne in mind that clauses (4) and (4-A) of Article 16 of the

Constitution are only the enabling provisions which permit the State to

make provision for reservation of these category of persons. Insofar as

making of provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to any class

or classes of post is concerned, such a provision can be made in favour

of SC/ST category employees if, in the opinion of the State, they are not

adequately represented in services under the State. Thus, no doubt,

power lies with the State to make a provision, but, at the same time,

courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to necessarily make

such a provision. It is for the State to act, in a given situation, and to

take such an affirmative action. Of course, whenever there exists such a

provision for reservation in the matters of recruitment or the promotion,

it would bestow an enforceable right in favour of persons belonging to

SC/ST category and on failure on the part of any authority to reserve

the posts, while making selections/promotions, the beneficiaries of

these provisions can approach the Court to get their rights enforced.

What is to be highlighted is that existence of provision for reservation in

the matter of selection or promotion, as the case may be, is the sine

qua non for seeking mandamus as it is only when such a provision is

made by the State, a right shall accrue in favour of SC/ST candidates

and not otherwise.”

c)In the case of Suresh Chand Gautam (supra), writ petitions were

preferred before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India for issuance of a direction in the nature of a mandamus

15

commanding the State/States to enforce appropriately the

constitutional mandate as contained under the provisions of Article

16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 of the Constitution , or in the alternative,

directing the respondents to constitute a committee or appoint a

commission chaired either by a retired Judge of the High Court or

Supreme Court in making survey and collecting necessary

qualitative data of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

in the services of the State for granting reservation in promotion in

the light of direction given by this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of

India, (2006) 8 SCC 212. Refusing to grant such reliefs in exercise

of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and after

referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Census Commr.

Vs. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796, this Court has observed

that no writ of mandamus of such a nature can be issued. While

refusing to issue a writ of mandamus of such a nature, in paragraph

49, it was observed and held as under:

“49. Recently in Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy [Census

Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S)

589] a three-Judge Bench while dealing with the correctness of the

judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court had directed that the

Census Department of the Government of India shall take such measures

towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country at the earliest

and in a time-bound manner, so as to achieve the goal of social justice in

its true sense, which is the need of the hour, the court analysing the

context opined thus: (SCC p. 806, para 25)

“25. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to

frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. The Act

16

has conferred power on the Central Government to issue notification

regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and

the Central Government has issued notifications, and the competent

authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of the court

to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and, in such

interpretation, certain creative process is involved. The courts have

the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where

it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres

applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But the

courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to

the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.”

We have referred to the said authority in Census Commr. case [Census

Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589]

as the Court has clearly held that it neither legislates nor does it issue a

mandamus to legislate. The relief in the present case, when appositely

appreciated, tantamounts to a prayer for issue of a mandamus to take a step

towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. In our

considered opinion, a writ of mandamus of such a nature cannot be issued.”

d) In the recent decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar and

another (supra), again it is reiterated by this Court that no

mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State

Government to provide for reservation. It was further observed that

even no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to

collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for

reservation. It was observed that even if the under-representation of

Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought

to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court

to the State Government to provide for reservation. While holding

so, in paragraph 18, it was observed and held as under:

17

“18. The direction that was issued to the State Government to collect

quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or inadequacy of

representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes in government services is the subject-matter of challenge in some

appeals before us. In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no

doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There

is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation

in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the

State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the

judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of

India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1] , Ajit Singh

(2) [Ajit Singh (2) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S)

1239] , M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 :

(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] and Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi

Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] that Articles

16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable

data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing

reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State

Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of

appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Articles 16(4) and

16(4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the

inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes, as noted above, is a prerequisite for providing

reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not

to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in

promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of

quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of

members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State

services. Even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court,

no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to

provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A.

Rajendran [C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721 : AIR 1968

SC 507] and Suresh Chand Gautam [Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of

U.P., (2016) 11 SCC 113 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 291] . Therefore, the

direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first

collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government services on the

basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or

not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by

this Court and is accordingly set aside. Yet another direction given by the

High Court in its judgment dated 15-7-2019 [Vinod Kumar v. State of

Uttarakhand, WP (S/B) No. 291 of 2019, decided on 15-7-2019 (Utt)] ,

directing that all future vacancies that are to be filled up by promotion in

the posts of Assistant Engineer, should only be from the members of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, is wholly unjustifiable and is

hence set aside.”

18

9.Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions

to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High

Court has committed a grave error in issuing a writ of mandamus and

directing the State Government to provide for 3% reservation/quota for

sports persons, instead of 1% as provided by the State Government. A

conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to provide

for 1% reservation/quota for sports persons. A specific order dated

25.07.2019 was also issued by the State Government. Therefore, the

High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of

mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of

reservation for sports persons, namely, in the present case, 3%

reservation instead of 1% provided by the State Government, while

exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the

High Court insofar as directing the State to provide for 3% reservation for

sports persons and/or provide for a sports quota of 3% in the

Government Medical/Dental Colleges is unsustainable and the same

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the first

direction issued by the High Court directing the State to issue a fresh

notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children

19

of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all private

unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab is

concerned, the present appeals are disposed of as the said issue has

become academic for the reasons stated hereinabove, However, the

question of law, whether such a direction/writ of mandamus could have

been issued is kept open.

10.1So far as the second direction issued by the High Court directing to

provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges

in the State of Punjab is concerned, the same is hereby quashed and set

aside by observing that no writ of mandamus could have been issued by

the High Court.

10.2All impleadment/intervention applications stand disposed of in

terms of the aforesaid judgment and order. However, if any individual

person has a grievance, he/she may take recourse to law for his/her

grievance.

11.The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. However,

in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

JANUARY 25, 2022 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

20