CWP PIL No. 36 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ PetitionPIL No. 362021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.01.2025 Youth for Equality and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another …..Respondents Present : Mr. Ashok Kumar Nabhewal, Advocate with Ms. Gauri Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. **** This petition has been filed in the shape of a Public Interest Litigation primarily assailing the constitutional vires of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services as Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016, including the issue of the said Act resulting in reservation in excess of 50% cap mandated by the Apex Court in its celebrated decision of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217 and subsequent decisions. 2. It is not disputed at the Bar that the same very Act of 2016 was assailed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the same was upheld vide judgment dated 01.09.2017 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 9931 of 2016 (Murari Lal Gupta vs. State of Haryana) and the directions passed therein are as follow: - “ RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.01.27 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP PIL No. 36 of 2021 2 !! " ### ! $ ! ! "% &! $!& ' ' & ! & &(!&$& !"% )! !" ( * + (, & & &! ' "%)!!" (*+ (, &!'&! &- . . / "%(& !&'& ! & & & !'&0 !&- . . / ( & - . -. 1 " % ! ! ( &! ! ! ( " ### & ( & .2 3. It is also not disputed at the Bar that the question of breach of cap of 50% reservation was also dealt with by the coordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision rendered in Murari Lal Gupta’s case (supra). It is also not RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.01.27 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP PIL No. 36 of 2021 3 disputed by learned counsel for the rival parties that the said decision of Murari Lal Gupta vs. State of Haryana (supra) is challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2261 of 2018 (Satvir Singh Saini and another vs. State of Haryana and others) is pending consideration till date. 4. In view of the above, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting orders, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition without entering into the merits of the petition and leave it for the Apex Court to adjudicate upon the issue involved. 5. Disposed of. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 23.01.2025 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.01.27 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document