Caste-based reservations, India (legal position)
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Contents |
Ban on double reservation benefit
SC upholds UPSC ban on double reservation benefit
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009
New Delhi: The SC on Friday upheld the validity of a civil services examination (CSE) rule virtually stopping double quota benefit for reserved category candidates who qualify on merit after competing under general quota.
A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices S H Kapadia, R V Raveendran, B Sudershan Reddy and P Sathasivam quashed a Madras High Court order which had termed the CSE rule 16(2) as unconstitutional. Rule 16(2) provides an opportunity to reserved category candidates, who rank among the general category, to fall back on their backward class status and improve their service choice. The improved service so availed by the reserved category candidate would then be counted against the quota posts specified for that service.
For example, if a reserved category candidate secures a rank in general category that fetches him Indian Revenue Services, then he could avail his backward status to improve his service and even get IAS.
Under Rule 16(2), the IRS post so vacated by the candidate by falling back on his SC, ST or OBC status, would then be offered to a general category candidate next in the waiting list. The HC had termed Rule 16(2) as unconstitutional as it was detrimental to the intention of socially affirmative action provided under the law.
Challenging this judgment, the Centre and a host of petitioners termed the HC ruling anomalous. Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate Anirudh Sharma had argued that it would amount to giving reservation over and above the specified percentage of posts reserved for SCs, STs and OBCs. The SC had on June 1, 2008, stayed the HC judgment.
Writing the unanimous verdict for the five-judge bench, CJI Balakrishnan said, “Candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16(2) and are adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservations.”
PG medical quota not binding on states: SC
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: In a ruling having a major ramification for medical education, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the Centre’s decision to provide quota for SCs and STs in post-graduate medical courses did not automatically bind the state governments to follow suit and implement it in their medical colleges.
It took note of the fact that the Centre has provided for reservation to SC and ST candidates in the All India Entrance Examination for MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS courses and also in the All-India quota PG seats, but firmly handed down the ruling that “the same cannot automatically be applied in other sections where state governments have power to regulate.”
Moreover, the Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal appeared disinclined to grant a direction to the states to follow the example set by the Centre. It upheld the Haryana government’s decision not to provide quota in PG medical courses.
“In our view, every state can take its own decision with regard to reservation depending on various factors,” said Justice Sathasivam. It said: “Article 15(4) is an enabling provision and the state is the best judge to grant reservation for SC/ST/Backward Class categories at PG level in admissions and the decision of the state of Haryana not to make any provision for reservation at the PG level suffers no infirmity.”
It accepted the Bhupinder Hooda government’s explanation that reservation in undergraduate medical courses is being provided strictly as per their policy but the PG level education in medical education was governed by the Medical Council of India (MCI).
Reservation not advisable in certain technical posts
Super-specialty [medical] posts
‘Only merit, no quota in super-specialty posts’
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
The Times of India 2013/07/19
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked caste-based reservations in appointments to faculty posts in AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Science), saying merit alone should count at the super-specialty level. “There were certain services and posts where either on account of the nature of duties...or the level in the hierarchy... merit alone counts,” a constitution bench said, quoting from the judgment in the Indira Sawhney case that upheld 27% quota for OBCs in central services
AIIMS faculty posts
SC rules out reservation in AIIMS faculty posts
The apex court blocked castebased reservations in appointments to faculty posts in AIIMS saying constitution benches of the court had warned against reservation at super-specialty level.
“There were certain services and posts where either on account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level in the hierarchy at which they stood, merit alone counts. In such, situations, it cannot be advised to provide for reservations,” a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices S S Nijjar, Ranajan Gogoi, M Y Eqbal and Vikramjit Sen said quoting from the judgment by a nine-judge bench delivered in Indira Sawhney case.
The court quoted from Indira Sawhney verdict: “... in respect of certain posts, application of rule of reservation may not be advisable in regard to various technical posts including posts in super specialty in medicine, engineering and other scientific and technical posts.”
‘SC/ST woman to retain tag after marriage’
Swati Deshpande | TNN
From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009 2010
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Friday held that a woman belonging to the SC/ST category by birth would retain her caste even after marrying a man who was from an upper caste.
The bench of Justices B H Marlapalle, Abhay Oka and R Y Ganoo said that a woman would not lose her caste by marriage and it did not change to that of her husband’s. In fact, as ruled by a Constitution bench of the SC,
‘‘Caste is acquired by birth and does not undergo a change by virtue of marriage or even adoption.’’ The apex court had also laid down that a woman from a general category married to a SC/ST man would also not automatically gain voluntary mobility into the backward caste.
The ruling came in a case of where a man and his family members were seeking protection from arrest last year in a criminal case filed against them under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for abusing his SC wife.
