ARUN MISHRA, J. - (1.) A Bench of three Judges vide order dated 20.8.2014 referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration opining that the judgment of a 5-Judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A.P. and Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 394, is required to be revisited in the light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, and not correctly following the exposition of the law in Indra Sawhney and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217. It was noted that matter involved interpretation and interplay between Articles 16(1), 16(4), 338 and 341 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) We, in order to consider the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Punjab Act') in the matter referred, framed the following issues on 4.2.2020: "i) Whether the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 are constitutionally valid? ii) Whether the State had the legislative competence to enact the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of the Act? iii) Whether the decision in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A. P. and Ors. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 394 is required to be revisited?"
(3.) The background facts are that the Punjab Government by Circular No. 1818-SW-75/10451 dated 5.5.1975 provided that out of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, fifty per cent of the vacancies would be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. The Circular was struck down by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment dated 25.7.2006. This Court dismissed the S.L.P. against the same on 10.3.2008.;