| To, Hon'ble Shri. Waghela You may please refer the following on question of merit and decision of IIT kharagpur which you have mentioned in your email. Article 16 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- 16. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race,caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office 1[under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory] prior to such employment or appointment. (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 2[(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation 3[in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class] or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.] 4[(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.] (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination. You may also refer Article 335 of the Constitution of India which reads as under:- 335. The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State: 1[Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.] Please read the judgment of Supreme Court in M Nagaraj and others Vs Union of India ""CONCLUSION: The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335.These impugned amendments are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling-limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the sub-classification between OBC on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand as held in Indra Sawhney5 , the concept of post-based Roster with in-built concept of replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal8. We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse. However, in this case, as stated, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions. However if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely. Subject to above, we uphold the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, the Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000, the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. We have not examined the validity of individual enactments of appropriate States and that question will be gone into in individual writ petition by the appropriate bench in accordance with law laid down by us in the present case. Reference is answered accordingly."" The similar criterion is given under Article 29(2) and therefore not only there is reservation for SC/St students but as per law there will relaxation in marks and percentage of marks. I personally feel that IIT is in limited sense although state but it is also bound by constitution and cannot ignore law of Parliament. Therefore the order passed by IIT is unconstitutional if some challenge it before SCI and SCI will declare the order as unconstitutional. There are few questions which are as follows A) How to define compelling reasons. B)What is the exact meaning of the word "backward"?Whether the Backward means economically backward or socially backward? Or both? The most important question which arouses is that whether Parliament or Government can create a caste and answer is negative. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar adopted "Bouddh" religion by denouncing Hindu religion it means that he has adopted Bouddh religion unconditionally and he was not allowed to take his caste when he left Hindu religion. He was not allowed to create a new caste in the religion in which he was new. There were thousand of peoples who denounced Hindu religion and adopted Bouddh religion along with Dr. Ambedkar. I found that there wards were not entitled to benefits of reservation after conversion to Bouddh religion but still till date they are using their old caste although they are on one hand saying they are bouddh and on other hand using their old for getting the benefits of reservation. They are adopting double standards and such peoples must restrain to use old caste benefits should not be extended to them.
viadya --- On Sat, 22/12/12, Babubhai Vaghela <vaghelabd@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Re: [IAC++] No justification for Relaxation in Selection Criteria.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.