Expanded reservation scope under Article 16(1) clarified by court decision. Previous Government Order invalidated.

The court held that reservations for categories other than those specified in Articles 16(4), (4A), and (4B) can be provided under Article 16(1), subject to valid classification tests. The Division Bench's opinion that Article 16(4) is exhaustive of all forms of reservation was overruled. The Government Order dated 06.10.2006, previously struck down, cannot be revived. The court also ruled that it cannot issue a mandamus to the Legislature or Executive to provide reservation. The petitions were dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioners.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Can reservation be provided, in favor of sportsmen, under Article 16(1) of the ConstitutionRs.
2. Would the order now passed by the court, holding that the judgment in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013 is not good law, result in revival of the Government Order dated 06.10.2006Rs.
3. Can a mandamus be issued, to the Legislature or the Executive, to provide reservation under Article 16(1) of the ConstitutionRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Can reservation be provided, in favor of sportsmen, under Article 16(1) of the ConstitutionRs.
The court examined whether Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is exhaustive of all forms of reservation or if reservation for the sports category can be provided under Article 16(1). Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification for legislation purposes. Article 16(1), derived from Article 14, ensures "equality of opportunity" in public employment. It permits reasonable classification, including the reservation of seats or vacancies for specific classes. The court emphasized that Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but a specific instance of permissible classification. Reservations for other classes, such as sportsmen, can be provided under Article 16(1), subject to valid classification tests. The court concluded that the Division Bench's opinion in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013, which held that Article 16(4) is exhaustive of all forms of reservation, was contrary to the Supreme Court's rulings and thus overruled. The power to make reservations for sportsmen is traceable to Article 16(1) but must satisfy the twin tests of a valid classification.

II. Would the order now passed by the court, holding that the judgment in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013 is not good law, result in revival of the Government Order dated 06.10.2006Rs.
The court addressed whether its current order would revive the Government Order dated 06.10.2006, which was struck down by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013. The court noted that while the law declared in the earlier judgment can be overruled, the specific decision quashing the Government Order has attained finality and cannot be undone in collateral proceedings. The court clarified that the Government Order dated 06.10.2006, being held non est by the Division Bench, cannot be revived or resurrected. However, it is open to the Uttarakhand State Legislature to enact a new law or for the Government to frame a new policy providing reservation for sportsmen, ensuring it satisfies the requirements of valid classification under Articles 14 and 16(1).

III. Can a mandamus be issued, to the Legislature or the Executive, to provide reservation under Article 16(1) of the ConstitutionRs.
The court examined whether it could issue a mandamus directing the Legislature or Executive to provide reservation for sportsmen under Article 16(1). It emphasized that the judiciary cannot direct the Legislature to enact a particular law or the Executive to frame a specific policy. The court's role is to interpret the law and ensure executive actions comply with the Constitution. It cannot compel the Legislature or Executive to exercise their powers in a particular manner. The court concluded that the petitioners' request for reservation under the Sports Category must be addressed to the Government, not the court. Only after a law or policy is made providing reservation can the courts examine its validity.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Division Bench's opinion in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2013, which held that Article 16(4) is exhaustive of all forms of reservation, is not good law. Reservations for categories other than those specified in Articles 16(4), (4A), and (4B) can be provided under Article 16(1), subject to valid classification. However, the Government Order dated 06.10.2006, held non est by the Division Bench, cannot be revived. The court also held that it cannot issue a mandamus to the Legislature or Executive to provide reservation. The petitions were dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioners.

---