, 2011 (59 )BLJR2075 , 181 (2011 )DLT608 (SC ), 2011 (4 )ESC571 (SC ), 2011 INSC 591 , JT2011 (9 )SC 415 , 2011 (4 )KCCRSN476 , 2011 (9 )SCALE33 , (2011 )8 SCC441 , [2011 ]10 SCR384 , 2011 (4 )SCT657 (SC ), 2011 (6 )SLR776 (SC ), 2011 (4 )UJ2795 , ,MANU/SC/0954/2011
R.V. Raveendran#A.K. Patnaik#231SC3020Judgment/OrderAWC#BLJR#DLT#ESC#INSC#JT#KCCR (SN)#MANU#SCALE#SCC#SCR#SCT#SLR#UJR.V. Raveendran,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, race, caste, sex or place of Birth.,Right to Equality,Fundamental Rights,Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court,The Union Judiciary,The Union,Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court,The Union Judiciary,The Union,Power of High Courts to issue certain writs,The High Court in the States,The States,Constitution of India98522,16919,16911,16912,98523 -->
MANU/SC/0954/2011
True Court CopyTM EnglishUJ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 7084 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27965/2010)
Decided On: 18.08.2011
Appellants: P.V. Indiresan Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik JUDGMENT
R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal raises a short but important question relating to the implementation of the 27% reservation for other backward classes (for short 'OBCs') in Central Educational Institutions under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No. 5 of 2007) (for short 'CEI Act'). The question relates to the meaning of the words "cut-off marks" used in the clarificatory order dated 14.10.2008 in P.V. Indiresan and Ors. v. Union of India MANU/SC/8678/2008 : (2009) 7 SCC 300, in regard to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India MANU/SC/1397/2008 : (2008) 6 SCC 1.
Background
3. The constitutional validity of the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 as also the constitutional validity of CEI Act were considered and upheld by a Constitution Bench of this Court on 10.4.2008 reported in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (for short 'A.K. Thakur'). Four separate opinions were rendered in the said decision by the learned Chief Justice of India, Pasayat J. (for himself and Thakker J), Raveendran J. (one of us) and Bhandari J. On the basis of the four opinions, the Constitution Bench formulated the following common order on which there was unanimity:
668. The Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, is valid and does not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates to the State-maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. Question whether the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as "private unaided" educational institutions are concerned, is not considered and left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Bhandari, J. in his opinion, has, however, considered the issue and has held that the Constitution (Ninetythird Amendment) Act, 2005, is not constitutionally valid so far as private unaided educational institutions are concerned.
669. Act 5 of 2007 is constitutionally valid