By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, June 5: The Meghalaya government on Friday filed an affidavit-in-reply before the High Court of Meghalaya, raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by North Shillong MLA Adelbert Nongrum.
The PIL questions the long-standing practice of applying the state’s 1972 Job Reservation Policy to allocate state-quota seats in higher professional courses such as MBBS, engineering, paramedical, architecture, agriculture, and veterinary sciences.
A copy of the affidavit was served on the petitioner’s counsel on Thursday. The counsel subsequently sought time from the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh. The matter has now been listed for hearing on July 7.
Every year, the Union government allots a certain number of seats in premier professional institutions across the country to Meghalaya under the central pool quota. The state government then invites applications from local students and distributes these highly sought-after seats using the categories and percentages outlined in the 1972 Job Reservation Policy — primarily for Khasi-Jaintia, Garo, other indigenous tribes, and the unreserved category.
Nongrum has challenged this practice in the High Court. His petition argues that no separate statutory reservation policy has ever been framed specifically for admissions to higher educational and professional courses.
He contends that the state is illegally borrowing an employment reservation policy for academic purposes. The petitioner further asserts that reservation is a constitutionally recognised exception to the right to equality under Article 14 and therefore requires proper legislative backing.
The absence of a dedicated legal framework, he claims, renders the current method of seat allocation unconstitutional.
The state government has strongly opposed the PIL from the outset. Advocate General Amit Kumar, appearing for the government, focused on preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition rather than addressing the merits of the case immediately. The government views the allocation of these seats as an executive policy matter aimed at maintaining social equity and protecting the interests of indigenous communities in Meghalaya.
The court has allowed the state more time to file a detailed reply and has directed that an advance copy be served on the petitioner’s counsel.
