Editor,
The Reservation Policy as per the Resolution dated January 12, 1972 provided among other things, 40% reservation for Khasi Jaintia, 40% reservation for Garo, 5% reservation for other STs and SCs, and 15% unreserved posts.
The most interesting detail in the said Resolution is the concession afforded to each of the above protected community in such cases where no eligible candidate can be recruited because the fraction of the posts as per the above percentage, is less than 0.5. This means that if, in a particular year, there are two number of posts for a particular cadre, then the fraction of those posts for Khasi Jaintia and Garo will be 40% of the two posts, which comes to a fraction of 0.8 each, which can be rounded off to 1, meaning those two posts will each be allotted to Garo and Khasi Jaintia. The fraction of those two posts for Other STs and SCs will be 5% of the two posts, which comes to a fraction of 0.1, meaning no candidate will be recruited from this category. The deficiency for Other will be carried over to the next year.
However, the Resolution provided that concession may be made for any of the above protected community, for a minimum fraction of 0.4 of the number of posts, IF that community is under represented in that particular cadre for which the posts are advertised as for example, if in a particular year, there is one post for a particular cadre. The fraction of that one post for Khasi-Jaintia and Garo will be 40% of that one post, which will be 0.4 each. So, in such a case, concession will be made to that community which is under-represented in that particular cadre, meaning the post will go to either Khasi Jaintia or Garo, whichever is under-represented and the deficiency for the other categories will be carried over to the next year. And if, in a particular year, the number of posts for a particular cadre is 8 then the fraction of the eight posts for each of the protected community will be 3.2 for Khasi-Jaintia, 3.2 for Garo and 0.4 for Other STs and SCs. In such a case, there would normally be a deficiency for the Other category that may be carried over to the next year, but if the Other category is under represented in that particular cadre, that 0.4 fraction will be rounded off to 1, meaning one post will go to the Other category. This will create deficiency from one of the other categories, which will be carried over to the next year.
Now, is this detail of the Resolution being taken into account by the Government even in the midst of this compensatory implementation, in cadres where Khasi Jaintia or Others are under- represented?
Moreover, the Resolution provides that in any particular year, the number of normal vacancies plus the backlog vacancies that are carried over for any of the above protected communities, shall not exceed 90% of the total vacancies. Is this being followed in the midst of this compensatory implementation of the Reservation policy? Or is it the case that in some recent recruitment(s), 100% of the vacancies were allotted to one particular community?
Lastly, there is confusion prevailing over the provision of the Resolution that the backlog vacancies shall be carried over for no more than one year. Does that provision actually nullify any compensatory or retrospective implementation? If no, then what is the justification? What in that Resolution even allows for any retrospective implementation, when it clearly provides that no backlog shall be taken into account for more than one year? The High Court judgement dated April 05, 2022 instructed the government to implement a Roster System in the spirit of the Reservation policy. This compensatory implementation is opposite to the spirit and the provisions of the Resolution. The retrospective implementation should not even be a consideration at this point. Has there been any ruling from the Court to make reparations or compensation for the laxity in the past? No.
Yours etc.,
Kitdor H. Blah,
Shillong
Roster System Vrs Reservation Policy
Editor,
On going through several news reports, articles and letters to editor of your esteemed daily, it appears there is a conflict between the Roster System and the clause 2 of the terms, rules and conditions of the first and original Reservation Policy notified vide No. PER. 222/71/138 dated. 12th January 1972.
How can there be a roster system, when the terms and conditions of the above reservation policy clearly stipulated in clause 2 that, “If sufficient number of suitable candidates for filling up the reserved vacancies are not available from respective classes in any particular year, then such vacancies will be available to others” (means either qualified Garo or Khasi-Jaintia candidates), which also implies that if there are no suitable or qualified Garo candidates, their quota should be filled up by the Khasi-Jaintia who are suitable and qualified for such vacant posts and vice versa.
In the same clause it is stipulated that, “The deficiency in the ST and SC will be carried forward to next recruitment year but shall not be carried forward for more than a year and after expiry of the second year these reservations (i.e., shortage of either Garo or Khasi and Jaintia ST) shall be treated as “Lapsed”. These terms and conditions are simple to understand. Then why did the High Level incumbents who are members of the meet while discussing the Roster System, cunningly avoided these important clauses? What does “Lapse” mean in this clause? It means that the shortage of either Khasi-Jaintia or Garo against the vacancies already advertised and filled up, the shortfall of ST Garo or Khasi-Jaintia became null and void or invalid. It also means that the vacancies are filled up equally by 40% Garo and 40% Khasi-Jaintia candidates. So by hypothesis and meaning of the terms of the Reservation Policy pointed out above, all STs of Meghalaya are equally represented in the recruitment of any posts or vacancies and there is no backlog at all.
According to my view the question is where there is any necessity of having a Roster System when we are equally represented amongst the Garo ST and Khasi-Jaintia ST candidates as per the above terms and conditions which are still in force? Or should the above notification and its terms and conditions be annulled and abrogated to pave the way for implementation of the Roster system which tantamount to abolition and cancellation of the entire reservation policy. As a result, therefore 80% should be an open competition for all STs in Meghalaya irrespective of rich or poor or who is more backward than other ST, the letter and spirit of the terms and conditions be abrogated and expunged to pave the way for the Roster system.
Yours etc,.
Svetlana Wankhar
Via email
Meghalaya’s Reservation Policy
Editor,
Apropos of W R Kharlukhi’s question, “Where in the Constitution does it say that population is the criterion for determining the reservation policy?” it may be reminded that the Government of India has been reserving posts in services for the SCs and STs based on the percentage of those communities separately to the total population of India as recorded in the decennial censuses.
After the 1951 census, 15.05% of posts was reserved for SCs and 6.3%, for STs. After the 1961 census, 15% of posts was reserved for SCs and 7.5% for STs. This continues till date, perhaps, as there has been no change in the population of those communities to the total population of India respectively. Reservation of posts for OBCs has been done on estimation of their population to the total population of India as their population is not collected by censuses.
Had the Government of Meghalaya followed the Central Government method, they would not have had to handle the present situation, which, who knows, may turn into a law and order problem in the future.
Yours etc
A. Pyrtuh,
Shillong-14