THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERversusANSHIKA GOYAL AND OTHERS

                         [2022] 8 S.C.R. 77                              77


            THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER                              A
                                  v.
                ANSHIKA GOYAL AND OTHERS
                   (Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2022)
                        JANUARY 25, 2022                                 B
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Constitution of India: Art.226 – Punjab Private Health
Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation
of fee and making of Reservation) Act, 2006 – s.6 – Reservation –
                                                                         C
State framed Sports Policy in the year 2018 which provided that
3% reservation in admissions will be provided for sports graded
person – 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   D
Department of Sports – By order dated 25.07.2019, a decision was
taken by the Government of Punjab to provide 1% reservation for
sports persons taking into consideration Clause 10 of the Sporty
Policy, 2018 – For academic year 2019-20, the State Government
issued a notification, which provided for reservation in Government
                                                                         E
as well as private institutions but no reservation was provided for
the management quota seats – The said notification was challenged
before the High Court on the grounds that : (i) No reservation was
provided for the management quota seats in private institutions and
(ii) Only 1% reservation instead of 3 % was provided for sports
persons –High Court directed the State to provide 1% reservation         F
in all private institutions and further directed that the said
reservation shall apply to management quota seats as well and
further issued writ of mandamus and directed that the fresh
notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in
Government institutions – Held: Direction of the High Court to
                                                                         G
provide 1% reservation to certain categories of person in all private
institution in the State has become academic as, firstly, admissions
for academic year 2019-20 are already given as per the interim
orders of the Supreme Court, secondly, the state had now already
provided the reservation even with respect to the private institutions
for the academic year 2021-22 – High Court committed a grave             H
                                   77
78             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A    error in issuing a writ of mandamus as a conscious policy decision
     was taken by the Government to provide for 1% reservation for
     sports persons – High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under
     Art.226 – Direction of High Court quashed and set aside –
     Reservation.
B            Gulshan Prakash (Dr.) and others v. State of Haryana
             and others, (2010) 1 SCC 477 : [2009] 16 SCR 1;
             Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of
             India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST
             Employees Welfare Association and others, (2015) 12
             SCC 308 : [2015] 1 SCR 55; Suresh Chand Gautam v.
C            State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016) 11 SCC 113 :
             [2016] 1 SCR 727; Mukesh Kumar and another v. State
             of Uttarakhand and others, (2020) 3 SCC 1; M.
             Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : [2006]
             7 Suppl. SCR 336; Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy,
D            (2015) 2 SCC 796 : [2014] 11 SCR 463 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
     [2009] 16 SCR1                    referred to             Para 3.2
     [2015] 1 SCR 55                   referred to             Para 3.2
E    [2016] 1 SCR 727                  referred to             Para 3.2
     (2020) 3 SCC 1                    referred to             Para 3.2
     [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336           referred to             Para 8c
     [2014] 11 SCR 463                 referred to             Para 8c
F            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 317 of
     2022.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2019 of the High Court
     of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.17248 of
     2019.
G
             With
             Civil Appeal Nos. 318 and 319-320 of 2022.
          Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Samten Doma, Ms. Ranjeeta
     Rohatgi, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advs. for the Appellant.
H
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. ANSHIKA GOYAL                              79
                   AND OTHERS

      P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Ms. Harshika        A
Verma, Tushar Bakshi, R. P. Sharma, Deepak Goel, K. Parameshwar,
Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Prasad Hegde, Pushpinder Singh, Ms. Shalini Kaul,
Siddhartha Jha, Advs. for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         M. R. SHAH, J.                                                       B

       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       C
providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist
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     D
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        E
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        F
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.                                           G
      2.1 The State of Punjab framed its Sports Policy in the year 2018
which provided that 3% reservation in admissions will be provided for
graded sports persons. Clause 10 of the said policy also provided that
the said Sports Policy shall prevail on all the Departments and
                                                                              H
80             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A    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.
B
            2.2 For 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
C
     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
D
     quashing Clause 17 of notification dated 6.2.2018 to the extent of not
     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.
            2.4 By judgment and order dated 23.08.2018, the High Court
E    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
F    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.
           2.5 Subsequently, for the academic year 2019-20, the State
     Government issued a notification dated 6.6.2019, which subsequently
G    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
H
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. ANSHIKA GOYAL                                  81
            AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

government institutions. Clause 16 provided for 1% reservation for sports         A
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.
                                                                                  B
       2.6 A 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       C
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      D
       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.                                                                      E
       (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.
                                                                                  F
       (d) Implementation of the 10% quota for economically weaker
       sections and the calculation thereof by the State of Punjab is upheld.
       2.7 Feeling 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
                                                                                  G
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.                                                    H
82             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A          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.
            3.1 Number of submissions have been made by Ms. Meenakshi
     Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State on the
B    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.
            3.2 It is vehemently submitted that no writ of mandamus can be
C    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
D    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);
E
            (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);

F           (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)
              3.3 Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on
G    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 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
H
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. ANSHIKA GOYAL                                83
            AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

in the State to provide the reservation/quota and what percentage of            A
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      B
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.                                                                        C
       4.1 It 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     D
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.
         4.2 Now so far as the direction issued by the High Court directing
the State to provide 3% reservation/quota for sports persons in                 E
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
                                                                                F
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.
                                                                                G
       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
                                                                                H
84             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A    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.
            6. Now so far as the directions issued by the High Court directing
B    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.
C
     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:
D
           “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
E          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
F
           & 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
G          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,
H
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. ANSHIKA GOYAL                               85
            AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      2019. Only 1% reservation be implemented with respect to sports          A
      quota. Counseling be held as per order passed by the High Court
      with other aspects.”
        6.1 Secondly, 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          B
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            C
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       D
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      E
of 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        F
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           G
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
                                                                               H
86            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 8 S.C.R.


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.
            8. While answering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of this Court
B    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/
C    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
D    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
E    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, 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
F    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
G    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
H    employment of the Union or the State, they are only enabling provisions
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. ANSHIKA GOYAL                              87
            AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

which permit the State to make provision for reservation of these category    A
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
                                                                              B
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. 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       C
      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       D
      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             E
      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        F
      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    G
      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      H
88            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A          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
B    were preferred before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
     India for issuance of a direction in the nature of a mandamus 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
C    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
D    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:
E
           “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
F          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)
G              “25. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a
               mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are
               absolutely different. The Act 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
H              Government has issued notifications, and the competent
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. ANSHIKA GOYAL                                 89
            AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

          authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of        A
          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
                                                                                 B
          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              C
      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                     D
      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             E
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.       F
While holding so, in paragraph 18, it was observed and held as under:
      “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           G
      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                    H
90      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A    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
B    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
C    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
D    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
E
     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
F    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
G    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
H
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. ANSHIKA GOYAL                               91
            AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      the High Court in its judgment dated 15-7-2019 [Vinod                    A
      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.”
                                                                               B
       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.         C
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         D
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          E
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 of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riot affected persons in all       F
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.
                                                                               G
       10.1 So 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.
                                                                               H
92              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A           10.2 All 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.
B    However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
     order as to costs.

     Devika Gujral                                             Appeals allowed.
     (Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

C




D




E




F




G




H