Regarding the second question, in Dr Preeti Srivastava 1999, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that at the level of super-speciality courses, no reservation is permissible since it is contrary to national interest. As regards reservation at the post-graduate level, the question was left open. However, the reasons given for holding that there shall be no reservation for super-speciality courses apply with equal force to post-graduate courses. The Supreme Court has held in Indra Sawhney that once a person gets selected to a cadre by direct recruitment on the basis of reservation, he belongs to one class along with others directly recruited in open competition, and a second level reservation thereafter for promotion is not valid. This principle holds good for reservation in post-graduate courses also. After a candidate secures admission to a degree course by reservation, all the students so admitted belong to one class. Therefore selection to higher courses should be according to merit obtained in the degree course.

As far as the last question is concerned, clause (5), which was inserted into Article 15 by the 93rd amendment, enables the state to provide quotas for backward classes in private unaided professional colleges established by non-minorities is ex-facie discriminatory in violation of the law laid down by 11-judge bench decision in T.M.A. Pai. Secondly, it is also discriminatory towards backward classes as they are deprived of securing reservation in minority colleges.

Now for the question: is it correct to say that the 93rd amendment makes introducing OBC quotas in higher professional courses mandatory? It certainly is not. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court, as early as in 1963, in M.R. Balaji held that Article 15(4) is only an enabling provision and that it does not impose an obligation to provide for reservation. The same holds good for the 93rd amendment.

... contd.