Jat reservation: HC refuses to vacate stay order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today refused to vacate the stay granted by it last month on Haryana government's decision to grant reservation to Jats and five other communities in jobs and educational institutions.
Taking up the matter, the vacation bench of justices Daya Chaudhary and Arun Palli fixed June 13 for arguments.
The court also directed all parties in the case to file their replies by June 10, while making it clear that no adjournment would be granted on the next date of hearing.
The development took place on Haryana's plea for vacation of ex-parte interim orders.
The counsel for Haryana said the petitioner had approached the high court without exhausting the available channel for redressal of his grievances.

He said it was mandatory for the petitioner to move the Haryana Backward Classes Commission, the statutory authority to entertain and examine complaints/issues raised by the petitioner. As such, the writ petition was not maintainable.

"It was premature at the current stage. Therefore, the impugned stay orders were liable to be set aside on this score alone," he added.
The state counsel said the process for carrying out recruitment to various posts had already been initiated by Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Haryana Public Service Commission.
Besides, admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate courses for the session 2016-17 were also open; and candidates had applied under the backward classes category.

The admission process for professional courses such as the MBBS had also started for the 2016-17 session, he added.
On May 26, the high court had stayed the reservation for Jats and five other communities provided by the Haryana government under a newly carved Backward Classes (C) category.
The court passed the order while hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of The Haryana Backward Classes (reservation in services and admission in educational institutions) Act 2016 that was passed unanimously by the state Assembly on March 29.
The Act was challenged by Murari Lal Gupta of Bhiwani, who sought a direction to quash block 'C' of the Act, which provides reservation to Jats under the BC (C) category.

The petitioner submitted that reservation to Jat community was provided under the new Act on the basis of Justice KC Gupta commission report, which had already been quashed by the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mukesh Verma, said the reservation on the basis of the Justice Gupta Commission report would amount to revision of a judicial order, which could not be done by the legislature.
He submitted that in 2014 too, the state government had introduced a bill to include Jats in the list of other backward classes for reservation in job and educational institutes.
But the Supreme Court in case of Ram Singh and others versus the Union of India had held that Jats were not backward socially, educationally and politically.