The Supreme Court on Friday declined to give any immediate direction on discrepancies in implementation of the reservation policy relating to OBC quota in central universities and posted the matter for hearing on July 4.
A vacation bench of justice P Sathasivam and justice A K Patnaik directed that the matter be listed on Monday before the regular bench where the matter was already pending.
A bench headed by Justice R V Raveendran had been seized of the petition which pointed out the confusion prevailing in several universities, including Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Delhi University (DU) where admission process was in full swing.
The regular bench will decide whether the cut-off marks for the OBC candidates should be 10% less than the marks fixed for the general category candidates or should it be 10% relaxation in the minimum eligibility criteria.
The petitioner P V Indersan, a former professor of IIT Madras, had sought implementation of an earlier apex court verdict by which the constitutional validity of 27% quota for OBC's in the Central Universities was upheld by it on April 10, 2008.
The vacation bench was informed that the three judges in a majority verdict had held that the cut-off marks for OBCs should not be less than five% or 10% as against the general category candidates.
Senior advocate Indu Malhotra, appearing for the petitioner had submitted that Delhi University is following a different yardstick by which the gap in cut-off for OBC students and general category students should not be more than 10% where as in JNU, the practice of 10% relaxation in minimum eligibility criteria is being followed.
The petitioner also requested the apex court to stay the orders of the Delhi High Court which had on September 7, 2010, said the minimum eligibility criteria for admission under OBC category would be at a maximum 10% below the minimum eligibility criteria fixed for the General category.
Requesting the apex court for an urgent hearing, the petitioner said results of the entrance examination of JNU for the current session have already been declared and interviews are scheduled from July 4 onwards.
The court, however, decided not to give an urgent hearing to the matter and posted it for Monday.