|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest News |
| 12th
July 2010 / Times of India / Bangalore Edition |
|
Is it time to review 27 pc OBC quota in education?
LEGALLY SPEAKING
This is the third academic year after SC on April 10,
2008, upheld the legislation providing 27% reservation
for OBCs in admissions to central educational institutions.
The apex court had excluded the creamy layer from the
27% quota benefit and said unfilled seats would be go
back to the general category. The government had also
assured the court that general-category seats would not
shrink as institutions would create more seats to absorb
the reservation requirement.
We can discount the chaos of filling the seats created
for OBCs under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation
in Admissions) Act, 2007, in 2008-09 as teething problem
despite the admission process getting extended till October.
However, the data for the next two academic years gives
an impression that the quantum of 27% may have been far
in excess of what was needed to meet the demographic demand.
In 2009-10, JNU transferred 83 of the 413 seats reserved
for OBCs to the general category. Of the 10,183 OBC seats
in Delhi University, there were no takers for nearly 2,300
seats.
This year too, DU is witnessing a similar story. University
officials are fearing that nearly 6,000 seats may get
transferred to general category for want of suitable candidates
from backward classes, despite the cut-off being 10 marks
less than the last general category candidate taking admission
in the institution.
The general category may not be complaining. But the increased
number of seats will definitely put pressure on the already
stretched faculty, library facilities and allied educational
resources available with the institution.
This is what happens when the political class, without
any scientific survey, fixes quota without identifying
what constitutes backwardness in the social and educational
maze. SC repeatedly warned against this, right from Indra
Sawhney judgment in 1992 till the Ashoka Kumar Thakur
judgment in 2008. Socially and educationally backward
classes (SEBCs), who are entitled for the 27% reservation
in government-run colleges and institutions, are at present
determined solely on the basis of the backwardness of
their caste. In both these judgments relating to OBC reservation
in employment and admission, the apex court had stressed
that caste could not be the sole criterion for identifying
the social and educational backwardness of a person.
So, without a proper identification of SEBCs, their number
was guesstimated and a percentage of seats kept reserved.
SC realized it but was hampered without contradicting
data to fault the socially affirmative action. That is
why it suggested periodic review of the quantum of quota
as well as the necessity of reservation in admission for
SEBCs. “There must be periodic review as to the
desirability of continuing operation of the statute —
Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admission
Act, 2007). This shall be done once every five years,”
the bench had said in Ashoka Thakur case.
Is the government prepared to review working of the 2007
law? If not, then it could utilize the opportunity provided
by the census to determine the exact number of persons
to be included in the socially and educationally backward
category to help work out the percentage of reservation
needed.
|
|
|
|
