By Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh
As bound by duty, the MLA of 17 North Shillong had moved the adjournment motion in the Assembly and also made public his views on the Reservation Policy. Unfortunately, on both occasions he was not able to expound his idea of “review and revamp” in concrete terms. Whereas his other colleagues seem to have no clue and perhaps some vested interests are taking a communal position on the issue which will only create discord amongst the communities it intends to serve.
Apart from the many ills, one good thing which can be credited to the past Ministers/Legislators (Khasi, Garo as well as others) were their efforts to maintain the mutual respect and sensibilities in critical matter like reservations. The series of Office Memoranda on Reservations notified by various governments reflected their magnanimity and commitment to the belief that Reservation should foremostly serve the last and the least.
There are three aspects in the debates on State’s Reservation Policy, viz; (i) historical (ii) execution vis a vis the formulae and (iii) roster system. The Reservation Policy of Meghalaya can be considered as the historical agreement made between the two dominant tribes, the Hynnirewtrep and Achik, and for the benefit of other smaller tribes and minority communities in the State as well. It is evident that the informed decision was taken by the Government then as references were made to important judicial decisions by High Courts and Supreme Court of India on the subject matter, one of which was the majority judgement made by Justice Gajendragadkar in the case, the General Manager, Southern Railways vs Rangachari on 28 April, 1961, where he observed that Article 16 (4) requires the State to satisfy that backward class of citizens were not adequately represented in its services.
It is amply clear that representation is the principle for reservations in the State and the Government’s resolution Dated 12 January 1972 reads- “…keeping in view the inadequacy of representation of these communities in the services under the autonomous State of Meghalaya in terms of their population that, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency in administration, the following reservation shall be made in favour of Schedule Tribes and Schedule Castes…(a) there shall be a reservation of 40% of vacancies in favour of Khasi and Jaintia (b) There shall be reservation of 40% of vacancies in favour of Garos (c) there shall be reservation of 5% of vacancies in favour of any other Schedule Tribes of Autonomous Districts of Assam now within Meghalaya and Schedule Castes of Assam”
The Government of Meghalaya had also prescribed the working formula or system based on which the Policy, which is as delicate, complex and sensitive as Reservation, is to be implemented. Therefore, paragraphs 2 to 6 of the original Office Memorandum Dated 12 January 1972 contained the said formula or system which has to be adhered to by every appointing authority. However, the question remains as to whether the formula helped the policy to achieve the objectives it was framed for? Or has it benefitted only one particular community or both or every community? Is the formula discriminatory or biased against a particular community or communities? Every formula employed in the process is subjected to test and scrutiny by the Courts etc.
In the process the Government had from time to time amended/altered the resolution in order to adjust with the competing claims and also to address the issue of inadequacy of representation so that the spirit of reservations is not diluted. Amongst the initial amendments was the rectification in the deficiency in the appointment of posts /vacancies in District Offices. It was found that non-transferable posts reserved in one District for the Schedule Tribes belonging to another District were not filled up even after it was carried forward to the following year. This has created administrative difficulties and dislocation. Therefore, the policy was amended by providing the combined reservation of 80% of posts in favour of Khasi and Jaintia and Garos, apart from 5% in favour of other Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. (Office Memorandum No.PER.272/72/5 Dated Shillong, the 18 December 1972)
In 1974 further alteration was made for the fixed period of one year so as to meet the short fall in direct recruitments from the 40% quota which belongs to the Garo community. It was found that the number of suitable Garo candidates available for filling up the reserved vacancies fell short of the reservation made in their favour. Hence the Policy was altered in the interest of administrative efficiency and resolved that since the 40% vacancies reserved for the Garos could not be filled up, the remaining vacancies in the quota reserved for the Garos shall be treated as “unreserved vacancies” and should be filled up only from amongst suitable candidates conversant in Garo language, customs and usages, preference being given to persons belonging to Garo community from areas even outside Meghalaya. For this purpose, a person can be considered to be conversant in Garo language, if he is able to read, write and speak Garo fluently.” (The Office Memorandum Dated 28 May 1974). Such decision cannot be construed as partisanship towards a particular tribe, rather it is the reflection of the collective struggle to ensure that no tribe or community is left behind.
The specification of Tribes/Castes who are to avail of the 5% reservation is issued, vide Office Memorandum No.PER.222/71/Pt.III/22 Dated 25 November 1976- “there shall be reservation of 5% of vacancies in favour of Rabhas, Boro-Kacharis and Koch permanently residing in Meghalaya and any other STs and SCs as specified in the fourth schedule and second schedule respectively to the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganization) Act 1971 insofar as they relate to Meghalaya. Subsequently, the Policy is amended, vide Office Memorandum dated Deptember 12, September 1979, to enable the State to conduct a special recruitment for selection of candidates from under- represented groups in regard to which deficiency is continuing.
Interestingly, in 1981 the question arose as to how to regulate those reservations in a situation where the number of vacancies is small. Thus, the Government resolved that where the number of vacancies is 9 (nine) or less, the same shall be treated as reserved vacancies in favour of the protected communities as specified in the said Resolution and Office Memoranda” (Vide Office Memorandum The 19 December 1981). The State Government has had to make one-time relaxation of the reservation policy in order to meet the shortage of human resources in selected technical and specialised posts and services. However, this relaxation was time bound and valid till the December 31, 1988. (No. PER (AR) 92/85/205, dated 161i1 Jan,1986)
While upholding the spirit of reservation, Governments in the past have explored multiple formulae for implementing the policy as it is intended to be. Besides, the Government (s) also considered and decided that Public Undertakings and Government Aided Institutions should make reservations in their services on the lines adopted by the State Government. The concerned Departments must adhere to the principle of reservation as envisaged in the Government Resolution and invariably followed when making appointments to posts and services under the Public Undertakings and Government Aided Institutions under their control (No.PER,222/ 72/32, dt, 16’h June, 1973).
In these fifty years, the State has been plagued with systemic failure, favouritism, arbitrariness, nepotism and corruption in employment, recruitment and appointment to posts and services. In April this year, the Meghalaya High Court stepped in to streamline and rectify certain flaws in the execution of Reservation Policy and ordered the implementation of Roster system. Following which the Meghalaya High Court itself immediately via Full Court Resolution notified the twenty-point roster system in respect of the entry level posts in High Court, District Courts, Sub-Divisional Courts and other institutions under the control of High Court of Meghalaya (Vide Notification No. HCM.II/39/2022/Estt Dated Shillong 14 June 2022). As bound by the Court Order, the Government of Meghalaya has also notified the guidelines for the roster system. But the delay and unscrupulous execution of the policy have had its toll on the youths as recruitment results and appointments are now being stalled for want of a Roster System.
There are more ways than one to implement the Roster System and it remains to be seen how the Government of the day executes this diligently. Will the roster system achieve the objectives of uplifting the backward and un-represented classes? Perhaps, roster system is sensible as a rule to govern the complex matter of reservations. To review and revamp the policy one should not deviate from the established grounds that reservation is primarily meant for the economically unsound and politically backward sections of society. The reservations formulae in Meghalaya must take into account crucial issues like (i) landlessness (ii) poverty/inequality (iii) backwardness of Districts/Blocks and representation.
An undated government file noted the intensity of the matter in these words “…The adjustment of these competing claims is undoubtedly a difficult matter…”