By Prof. Lakhon Kma
The State Reservation Policy (SRP), notified by the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel Department (N0.PER.222/71/138, Dated Shillong, the 12th January, 1972) and the Roster System notified through Office Memorandum, dated 10th May 2022 (OM) based on the judgment of Meghalaya High Court (Case no. WP(C) No. 394 of 2021; Date of order: 05.04.2022 in Zanera R. Marak & Ors. vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.) is in the eye of the storm in the recent days and is only expected to be intensified. While the Hon’ble High Court has rightly asked for a Roster System based on reservation quotas for different categories as it exists in all Central Government establishments and other States, it never asked for a cut-off date or the like or how far back the roster system would be made applicable. Apparently, the State government last year has mischievously attempted to apply the Roster System retrospectively ignoring the provisions of Clause 2 of the State Reservation Policy which clearly states that “If sufficient number 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”. Further, in the same clause it say “But the deficiency in the number of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes 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 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”.
The OM dated 10th May 2022 which was published in the Gazette of Meghalaya on May 26, 2022 stated in ‘Clause D-1-In order to prepare the Reservation Roster, names of all the candidates holding the post as on the date of notification of this O.M. starting with the earliest appointee, since the time the Reservation Policy came into effect, subject to information being available, shall be filled up in the Reservation Roster against the point in the Roster’. Furthermore, ‘Clause B-6’ of the OM stated that ‘After every recruitment cycle, an account shall be noted in the Reservation Roster indicating the representation of Khasi and Jaintia, Garo, Other STs and SCs and details of backlog reserved vacancies, which will be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle’.
Clearly, the OM has been designed with malafide intent to benefit the Garo community retrospectively, ignoring the provisions of the Clause 2 of the aforesaid Reservation Policy while framing the Roster System which is going to kill the job prospects of the Hynniewtrep people (read as Khasis and Jaintias as per the SRP). I fail to fathom what our elected representatives representing Khasis, Jaintia and Ri-Bhoi districts were doing when the OM was issued last year. That was the right time to denounce it and more so ask for the review of the State Reservation Policy in toto before the proposed retrospective implementation of the Roster System which is against all jurisprudence and established procedures.
The Meghalaya High Court has only directed the State government to prepare a Roster System so that posts can be identified against each category to avoid any anomalies in the filling up of vacant posts in existence and for future recruitments. Indeed, the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya has cleared stated in its judgment dated April 03, 2023 while rejecting the PIL of Greneth M. Sangma vs. the State of Meghalaya & ors. on the year of applicability of the Roster System without going into the merits of the case and left it to the legislature and the executive, particularly to the new Assembly for thorough discussion. There are several important aspects that require immediate redressal. Firstly, the OM dated 10th May 2022 requires immediate review by the State government. Unless Clause 2 of the State Reservation Policy is amended by the State Assembly, how can the roster be prepared because both contradict each other. While SRP allows filling up of the vacancies by other categories in case of non-availability of suitable candidates from the respective reserved classes in any particular year and deficiency can be carried forward only for a year, the Roster System enables the carry forward of deficiencies for an infinite period. The question is-can the OM dated 10th May 2022 supersede the basic tenets of the SRP-the Clause 2? Certainly not!
As an addendum to SRP, the OM No. PER 272/72/5, dtd. 18th Dec., 1972 Clause 2.2 allowed ‘combined reservation of 80% of the post in favour of Garos and Khasi-Jaintias instead of a separate reservation of 40% each for Garos and Khasi-Jaintias, respectively at District level. Why not do the same at State level? Obviously, Roster System will also be required in District level as well. OM dated 10th May 2022 ‘Clause F’ has very conveniently reproduced the provisions of OM No. PER 272/72/5, dtd. 18th Dec., 1972, Clause 2.1 & 2-2 to tackle this issue. Furthermore, another addendum to SRP-OM No. PER.222/72/163, dtd. 28th May, 1974 allowed the fulfillment of 40% reservation to Garos even by candidates outside Meghalaya. How will Roster System address this issue?
Apparently, there are serious flaws in the State Reservation Policy and subsequent OMs on the same and mostly glaringly-the Roster System the OM dated 10th May 2022 to be implemented retrospectively. Khasi-Jaintia-Ri-Bhoi districts comprise about 14 lakhs of the total population (2011 census), bigger geographical areas spread over 7 districts and consist of 36 Assembly constituencies. Whereas, Garo hills has a total population of less than 10 lakhs (2011 census), smaller geographical areas comprising of 5 districts and 24 Assembly constituencies. Yet, SRP allotted 40% reservation of vacancies for them and 40% reservation for Khasi-Jaintias. Is this justified? Even in 1971, the Khasi-Jaintia population was about 45% and Garos about 32%, yet this unfair ratio was implemented but was partly compensated in the short term by the presence of Clause 2 of SRP. Only God knows the compulsion of our predecessors to accept this flawed State Reservation Policy, apart from not getting Chief Ministership and getting a State without proper demarcation of boundaries with Assam which is haunting the State till today.
At the best, this can be described as a short-sighted vision of our predecessors. But why should the compulsions and short-sightedness of our predecessors impact the life of Hynniewtrep people of 21st Century? Let us not allow ourselves to commit the same mistake our predecessors did by keeping mum on the SRP and the Roster System. The current youth and the future generations will curse us if we keep quiet today. We have to call a spade a spade. The contradictions in the State Reservation Policy vis-à-vis the Roster System being implemented now needs to be rectified.
Lastly, if at all the reservation needs to be done let it be done tribe-wise in the State, keeping in mind the youth of Meghalaya of the 21st Century and their job prospects in the State Government. In that case let’s do it uniformly by dividing the 80% based on population size and prepare the roster accordingly and retrospectively. This of course, is not realistic similar to the existing 40:40 ratio. There is no tribal dominated State in the country where reservation is divided tribe-wise, be it 3 or 33 recognized tribes. Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram all have combined reservation of ST except for minor tribes. Even Manipur has 31% combined reservation for STs. I think all elected representative cutting across party lines from Jaintia Hills, Ri-Bhoi and Khasi Hills have to demand the immediate modification of the OM dated 10th May 2022 and concurrent review of the SRP. Similarly, all the student bodies, NGOs, civil societies, social thinkers and the general public have to forget their differences and demand for the same in one voice because it concerns the jobs prospects of the entire Hynniewtrep people.
The elections are over and we all took what was in the offerings. It’s time to put our heads together specifically on State Reservation Policy and the associated Roster System so that the right and fair share of the State’s available jobs of our Khasi-Jaintia youths of today and future generations are protected. We have to be ready for hard and prolonged democratic and peaceful agitations across the State to force the government of the day to review its decisions and get ready for any consequences. With one voice, we have to demand to convene a Special Assembly Session only to discuss and review the State Reservation Policy and associated Roster System. No matter which formula is adopted, any Reservation Policy and the associated Roster System cannot be made applicable retrospectively but only prospectively. I am not against our Garo brothers and sisters. They and their leadership are doing everything to protect their interests. On a similar vein I want our people and our leadership to protect the interests of the Khasi-Jaintias people at all costs. All policies being implemented in our State cannot be seen to be favouring one tribe against the rest and has to be seen as fair and justified to all the Khasi-Jaintias of the State of Meghalaya as well.
(The author teaches in NEHU, Shillong).