Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University has invited the attention of the Court to the entire material relating to parliamentary debates, the deliberations of the Standing Committee of the Parliament and the objects and reasons to contend that firstly, the University was established under a special Act, namely, the 1994 Act. The said Act clearly provided for special reservation for Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and accordingly, the First Academic Ordinances provide for 50% reservation to such classes. He therefore submits that this stood protected and could not be abrogated by the general provisions of the 2006 Act. His contention is that the 1994 special Act continues to hold the field and any exercise of framing of Ordinances under the said Act that provides for 50% reservation could not have been taken away for which the amendment in the 2012 Act came to be introduced. He submits that the respondent-University being a special university meant to uplift the cause of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes in particular is fully justified in providing 50% reservation which stands protected under Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. He submits that even if the validity of the 2006 Act has been upheld the same does not abrogate the provisions of the 1994 Act that can still exist independently and which now stands even otherwise protected with the 2012 amending Act. He contends that the petitioners having not challenged the competence of the Parliament or prayed for declaring the said provisos as ultra vires to Part-III of the Constitution of India, the wisdom of the legislature in introducing the statutory limitations cannot be said to be violative of m Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the provisos simply preserve and contain what was provided under the 1994 parent Act of the University and hence all the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be rejected. He has also questioned the locus stand of the petitioners on the ground that reservation is not a fundamental right and no such rights can be enforced by the petitioners. He then submits that the University Ordinances were also laid before the Parliament and there is a presumption of the validity of the 50% reservation provided for in the Ordinances. On the issue of interpretation, he submits that the provisos, if literally as they stand, carve out an exception which does not in any way violate either the main clause of Section 3 being an exception to the same and once having been included, the wisdom of the Parliament or the reasonableness thereof He submits that the purpose of a proviso is to make a provision which but for the proviso would not be in the main Section and the same can also simultaneously stand with the main Section. There is a presumption against implied repeal as such the 2006 Act does not override the 1994 Act, which is a special Act. Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University has invited the attention of the Court to the entire material relating to parliamentary debates, the deliberations of the Standing Committee of the Parliament and the objects and reasons to contend that firstly, the University was established under a special Act, namely, the 1994 Act. The said Act clearly provided for special reservation for Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and accordingly, the First Academic Ordinances provide for 50% reservation to such classes. He therefore submits that this stood protected and could not be abrogated by the general provisions of the 2006 Act. His contention is that the 1994 special Act continues to hold the field and any exercise of framing of Ordinances under the said Act that provides for 50% reservation could not have been taken away for which the amendment in the 2012 Act came to be introduced. He submits that the respondent-University being a special university meant to uplift the cause of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes in particular is fully justified in providing 50% reservation which stands protected under Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. He submits that even if the validity of the 2006 Act has been upheld the same does not abrogate the provisions of the 1994 Act that can still exist independently and which now stands even otherwise protected with the 2012 amending Act. He contends that the petitioners having not challenged the competence of the Parliament or prayed for declaring the said provisos as ultra vires to Part-III of the Constitution of India, the wisdom of the legislature in introducing the statutory limitations cannot be said to be violative of m Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the provisos simply preserve and contain what was provided under the 1994 parent Act of the University and hence all the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be rejected. He has also questioned the locus stand of the petitioners on the ground that reservation is not a fundamental right and no such rights can be enforced by the petitioners. He then submits that the University Ordinances were also laid before the Parliament and there is a presumption of the validity of the 50% reservation provided for in the Ordinances. On the issue of interpretation, he submits that the provisos, if literally as they stand, carve out an exception which does not in any way violate either the main clause of Section 3 being an exception to the same and once having been included, the wisdom of the Parliament or the reasonableness thereof He submits that the purpose of a proviso is to make a provision which but for the proviso would not be in the main Section and the same can also simultaneously stand with the main Section. There is a presumption against implied repeal as such the 2006 Act does not override the 1994 Act, which is a special Act. Submit