- (1.) The petitioners abovenamed filed this Public Interest Litigation challenging the report submitted by Andaman and Nicobar Other Backward Classes also the subsequent decision dated 16th June, 2003 of the said Commission whereby a further reservation of 11% was made in excess of 27% in violation of the solemn order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab, letter issued by the Secretary (TW), A 85 N Administration vide No. 8-3/2003-TW/1310 dated 18th July, 2005, letter N0.12011/13/2004-BCC dated 12th September, 2005 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India of Social Justice and Empowerment; Notification dated 16th December, 2005 by the Special Secretary (TW), A & N Administration notifying five categories. Further direction has been sought for to conduct proper survey of the entire islanders defined in Order No. 4247 dated 8th December, 2004.
(2.) The petitioners are claiming to be the permanent inhabitants of these islands and they owe their origin to their ancestors who said to have come to these islands three or four generations back. As such, they are permanent settlers. Their families have been contributing for the socio-economic development of these islands. Similarly other categories of the people had also come to these islands and settled and those classes of settlers are serving the Municipal Council, Panchayats as dhobis, barbers mochis (cobbler), fishermen, agricultural labourers etc. These two petitioners are not only ventilating their grievance of their own but also grievances of those persons who are rather similarly circumstanced with that of the petitioners who have been identified by A & N Administration as permanent inhabitants of these islands. As such, they have their locus standi to file this application.
(3.) In order to get relief the grounds for challenge of the said report of the Commission and the order of acceptance of the said report and follow up decisions as stated above amongst others are as follows: The Commission has failed to identify, really Backward Classes, hence job reservation based thereon is bad in law as the same is not done in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney more particularly the direction given in paragraphs 648, 675 and 700 of the said judgement. The said Commission failed to consider the cases of other eligible categories which will be classified as permanent inhabitants of these Islands and also they are socially, economically and educationally backward. On the other hand, the said Committee recommended the cases of the alleged five categories who are not OBC in real sense, and thereby there has been deprivation of large number of people who are the real beneficiaries of the OBC scheme. The Committee while choosing those categories of persons, had failed to consider that they having got job in various departments are no longer backward in any sense. They have now become creamy layer of this class. The decision of reservation of 38% of those categories is absolutely contrary to the judgement and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal case which has been directed that reservation in any manner should not exceed 27% of the post.;