'Prima Facie Appears State Is Trying To Reintroduce Same Classes Of OBC Reservations Which Were Struck Down': Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court while putting a stay on the notification by which the state government had ordered the preparation of a new list for Other Backward Caste (OBC) classes in the state, has held that it prima facie appeared that the state was trying to reintroduce the same OBC classes and percentage of reservations which had been struck down by a division bench of the court, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty held: However, prima facie, it appears that the respondents are proceeding in hot haste and are attempting to bring in the self-same classes and to re-introduce the percentage of reservation, which have been struck down by this Court, by executive orders and not in exercise of State's legislative functions and that too before we can scrutinize the steps taken by the Commission in terms of our earlier order dated 6th May, 2025.

The State ought to have placed the reports and the bills before the Legislature for amendment and introduction of classes in the Schedule of the 2012 Act. The executive notifications are in direct conflict with the judgment and the same had not been issued under the 2012 Act, they added.

The present pleas were filed challenging the benchmark survey, a memo dated 28th February, 2025, issued by the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes and a communication dated 1st March, 2025 issued by the District Welfare Officer proposing deployment of enumerators/surveyors for conducting such benchmark survey as well as notifications for the purpose of preparing a new list of OBC classes in the state.

It was submitted on behalf of the Commission that it is willing to identify and conduct survey of all the backward classes in the State. Considering such submission, the High Court directed the Commission to publish the advertisements of the proposed survey and widely circulate the same all over the State, starting at the village level. It was further observed that advertisements shall be published in widely circulating newspapers.

However, in the midst of this exercise, an intervention application was filed by the petitioner seeking preponement of the date of hearing and not to implement the benchmark survey as it was alleged that the respondents were proceeding with lightning speed in making recommendations in derogation to the said judgment.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the list of 113 sub-castes chosen by the respondents for the proposed benchmark survey, as mentioned in the memo dated 1st March, 2025, includes the names of the classes struck down by this Court, in its earlier order.

It was argued that the respondents are proceeding in a tearing hurry and by a notification dated 8th May, 2025 issued by the Secretary of the Backward Classes Welfare Department, had subcategorised the backward classes in the State list of OBCs for the purpose of the said Act into subcategories being OBC-A and OBC-B.

Thereafter, it was stated that by a notification dated 27th May, 2025 issued by the said Department, 64 classes out of the 66 classes existing prior to 2010 were sub-categorised and by a notification issued on the same day, 51 categories of backward classes were included in the list.

Thereafter, the petitioners argued that by a notification dated 3rd June, 2025 the percentage of reservation for OBCs in West Bengal were increased to 17% providing 10% reservation for OBC-A and 7% OBC-B and by a further notification issued on the same date i.e., 3rd June, 2025, 25 more classes were included in the State list of OBCs and sub-categorised into OBC-A and OBC-B.

It was submitted that that in view of the directions contained in the judgment dated 22nd May, 2024, the State Executive could not have issued the said notifications without including the recommended classes in Schedule-I of the 2012 Act upon acceptance of the recommendation of the Commission by the State of West Bengal in discharge of its legislative functions.

It was contended that by the judgment dated 22nd May, 2024, this Court had categorically directed that the 66 classes existing prior to 2010 would be enjoying a 7% of reservation. The categorization of classes as OBC-A and OBC-B and fixation of 17% of reservation was struck down by this Court.

Therefore, without approval of such sub-categorisation and re-introduction of percentage of reservation through the competent State legislature, the State executive could not have issued the said notifications towards sub-categorisation and reservation percentage.

Accordingly, the court noted that it appeared that the state was attempting to proceed in "hot haste" and include reservations which were struck down earlier, without legislative approval.

Thus, it stayed the notification till the next date of hearing, on 31st July, 2025.

Background

Click here to read order