ORDER S.R. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Order/Letter No. 1807/151094-15 (18/94) Shiksha Anubhag-10, Lucknow, dated 10th May, 1994 contained in Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition and any other Government Order or Notification providing thereby reservation of seats in the Universities in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes.
2. The petitioner who appeared in person assailed the validity of the impugned Gov-
eminent Order on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It was also urged that the reservation provided for by means of the impugned G.O. in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes exceeded 50% and that being so the G.O. was contrary to the law declared by Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 (6) JT (SC) 273 (Mandal Commission Case).
3. Having heard the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel we are of the view that petitioner's aforestated submissions are misconceived. Reservation policy of the State Government as embodied in the impugned Executive Order/G.O. which stands replaced by a statutory order; the Uttar Pradesh State Universities (Reservation in Admission for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Order, 1994 (in short the Reservation Order, 1994) issued under Section 28(5) of the State Universities Act is, in our opinion, well sanctioned by Article 15(4) of the Constitution and is well in tune with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney (supra). True, reservation contemplated in Articles 15(4} and 16(4) of the Constitution should not exceed 50%, but "some relaxation in this strict Rule may become imperative" under certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people as observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 881 of the report 1992 (6) JT (SC) 273 at page 670. However, the question of relaxation to the said Rule does not arise in the instant case inasmuch as reservation of seats in any course of study in a University in favour of S.C./S.T./OBC as stipulated and comprehended by the Reservation Order, 1994 does not exceed 50%. The impugned G.O. as also clause 2 of the Reservation Order, 1994 provide for reservation of seats in any course of study in University in favour of S.C. to the extent of 21%, in favour of S.T. to the extent of 2% and in favour of O.B.C. to the extent of 27%, total of which comes out to be 50%. Thus it is evident that the impugned G.O. and the Reservation Order, 1994 do not exceed the maximum limit of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution fixed by the Supreme Court as a matter of General Rule.
4. The petitioner then tried to assail the impugned Government Order and the Reservation Order, 1994 on the ground that reservation of seats in favour of other categories of students if clubbed with the reservation of seats in favour of S.C./S.T./ O.B.C. would exceed 50% and thereby contravene the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned case. This submission too is misconceived and devoid of merits.
5. The first proviso to clause 2 of Reservation Order, 1994 explicitly and unambiguously provides that where any University has provided for reservation in admission in favour of any other category of candidates than those referred to above, the candidates selected for admission on the basis of such reservation shall be placed in the appropriate category to which they belong. To remove all doubts and ambiguity, the example given in the proviso makes it abundantly clear that even total reservation of seats in any course of study would not exceed 50% inasmuch as, if a candidate selected for admission in any course of study on the basis of reservation other than the one contemplated by the Reservation Order, 1994 Say reservation in favour of sport? person belongs to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or other backward classes, he will be placed in the respective category to which he belongs by making necessary adjustment and similarly if he belongs to general category, he will be placed in that category after making necessary adjustment. Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney case (supra) has clearly held in paragraph 832 of the report 1992 (6) JT (SC) 283 at page 639 "that this Rule of 50% applies only to reservation in respect of backward classes made under Article 16(4)". The Supreme Court has further clarified this Rule by dividing reservations into "vertical reservations" and "horizontal reservations" in the following words:--
"The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes (under Article 16(4)) may be called vertical reservation whereas reservation in favour of physically handicapped (under clause (1) of Article 16) can be referred to as horizontal reservation. Horizontal reservations out across the vertical reservations what is called inter-locking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons, this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to S.C. category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly if he belongs to open competition (O.C.) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remain and should remain the same."
6. Clause 2 of the Reservation Order, 1994 including the first proviso thereof is well in accordance with the law of reservation as laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney case, 1992 (6) JT (SC) 273 (supra).
7. The petitioner then tried to urge that the second proviso to clause 2 of the Reservation Order, 1994 is violative of the 50% Rule of reservation laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney case (supra). This submission again seems to be based on misreading of the second proviso. All that the second proviso provides is that the seats, if any, reserved under any other law for the time being in force, or under any order of the Government of India, for the Students belonging to any other State, shall not be included in the total number of seats for the purpose of computing the percentages under the paragraphs. It is evident that the second proviso does not transgress the limit of reservation under Article 15(4) of the Constitution imposed by the Supreme Court, as a matter of Rule, in its verdict rendered in Indira Sawhney case (supra). Reservation for the students belonging to any other State is not relatable to reservation under Art. 15(4). Further the petitioner has not specifically assailed the Reservation Order, 1994 which as held above does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity or illegality. The petitioner has neither challenged the vires of S. 28(5) of the U. P. State Universities Act which has no overriding effect and provides that admission to medical and engineering colleges and to courses of instruction for degrees in education or Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicines shall be regulated by such orders as the State Government may, by Notification, make in that behalf. The Reservation Order, 1994 is thus legally and constitutionally valid.
8. Before parting with the judgment, it may also be observed that according to hist own showing the petitioner is only intending to get admission to LL. M. Course. It is not his case that he applied for and was denied admission to LL.M. Course on account of the reservation policy of the Government as contained in the impugned G.O. and/or the Reservation Order, 1994. We are afraid if the petitioner can at all be said to be an aggrieved person.
9. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.
10. Petition dismissed.