We have referred rather elaborately to the _list prepared by the State Government under Government Orders Nos. 1886 of 1%3 and 1880 of 1966 as well as the decisions of the High Court striking down those lists. Even at the time when the earlier decision was given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court i,n P. Sukhadev v. Tbe Government of Andhra Pradesh(!), the decision of this Court in M. R. Ba/aji and others v. State of Mysore(') had been pronounced. It is really on the basis of the said decision, that the High Court, on the former two occasions struck down the reserva. tions made under the two Government Orders on the ground that the preparation of the two lists of Backward Classes had not been made in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court. In fact, in both the decisions the High Court has emphasised that there has been no investigation whatsoever regarding the various factors that are necessary to be obtained as laid down by this Court for the purpose of making special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally Backward Cl!lsses of citizens as envisaged in Art. 15 ( 4). The sole reason given in the two deci· sions by the High Court for striking down the reservation is the . fact that the necessary data or material, as laid down by this Court, had not been collected by the State Government. We are a~ain emphasising this aspect because the High Court in the decision, which is under attack before us, has relied on the above two earlier decisions, to a large extent for coming to the oonclusion that the present list of Backward Classes suffers from the same infinnity. as pointed out on the former occasion. The High Court has further held that the same persons who had been included in the original list, as belonging to Backward Classes and which list was struck down twice, have again been included in the present G.0. No. 1793 (!) 1966 A.N.W.R. 294. (2) [1963] Supp, I s.c.R. 439 s.c.R. 439 439
