Since the birth of Meghalaya the State has followed the 40:40:5:15 reservation policy where the Khasi & Jaintia people are classed as one group who would enjoy 40 % reservation in jobs and education, the Garos 40% although their population is lesser than the above two tribes combined. There is a reservation of 5% vacancies in favour of any other Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes as specified in the Fourth Schedule and the Second Schedule respectively of the said Act in so far as they relate to Meghalaya. The rest 15 % is open for general candidates. However, with time there are now special job reservations for the disabled and for the economically weaker section (EWS). All these need to be fitted equitably and hence the State has to maintain a meticulous roster of how many vacancies have been filled with which category so that in case there was no qualified person to fill a vacancy at a particular time then that category does not lose out in the next recruitment drive.
The State Reservation Policy however, clearly mentions that beyond one year a vacancy lapses if it is not filled up. If sufficient numbers of suitable candidates for filling up the reserved vacancies are not available from the respective classes in any particular year, then such vacancies will be available to others. But the deficiency will be carried forward to the next recruitment year and made good in the recruitment of that year, provided that the reservation on account of the deficiency shall not be carried forward for more than one year. After the expiry of the second year, these reservations shall be treated as lapsed. It has also been decided that at no time shall the number of normal reserved vacancies and the “carry forward” vacancies together exceed 90% of the total number of vacancies in that year.
In March 2021, the Advocate General of Meghalaya told the Supreme Court that reservation beyond 50 per cent is justified in the State keeping in view its extraordinary circumstances, peculiar features and a tribal population of over 85 per cent. Arguing before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, Meghalaya’s advocate general said that the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment (also called the Mandal verdict) which put a cap of 50 per cent on reservations, does not require re-consideration by a larger bench since the population of tribals in Meghalaya is 85.9 per cent as per the 2001 census.
Needless to say only a scrupulous implementation of the Reservation Policy allocating the percentages in an equitable manner would have been beyond litigation but that did not happen. On June 14 last year the Meghalaya High Court responding to a Public Interest Litigation told the State Government to keep on hold recruitments until the roster system is in place. The Meghalaya High Court led the way by coming up with a 20- point roster system for entry level posts in High Court, District Courts, Sub-Divisional Courts and other institutions under the control of the High Court of Meghalaya. The Government of Meghalaya followed suit vide its Office Memorandum and notified the guidelines for the roster system. However, its inability to put in place that system delayed appointments in several departments including the Police Department. And now this issue has become a political hot potato!