THE  MODERN  RATIONALIST

No action was taken by the Government of India on the recommendations of the Second BC Commission headed by Justice B.P.Mandal for nearly ten years. Only when Thiru V.P.Singh became Prime Minister in 1989, the report saw the light of the day and an Act was passed providing 27% of reservation to OBCs in employment in Central Government Service and in Public Sector undertakings.
The Brahmins, people of other forward communities and the BJP raised a big hue and cry on this issue and started nation wide agitations and instigated riots. The BJP withdrew the outside support given to Thiru V.P.Singh’s government and he had to tender resignation of his cabinet. He was happy to give a good price for the achivement of social justice! The provision of reservation to OBCs in Govt. service was challenged in courts. But, after a longdrawn legal battle, this provision has been finally upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India.

Provision of reservation in employment is not enough; reservation for admission into educational institutions is a pre-requisite to avail the reservation in employment. Therefore, Dravidar Kazhagam continued its struggle to get reservation to OBCs for admission in central educational Institutions. The Government of United Progressive Alliance headed by Dr.Manmohan Singh enacted Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (CEI Act), providing 27% reservation for OBCs in Central Education Institutions. Former Union Minister for Human Resources Development, Arjun Singh’s contribution in this regard is to be remembered for ever.

Again the Brahmins and people of other forward communities opposed this reservation and went to the court. The Government of India came forward to introduce this reservation in a phased manner in three years at the rate of 9% per annum, to increase the number of seats for general category so that the GC candidaates may not be put to any loss due to this reservation to OBCs and to provide funds for the infrastructure required thereof. The constitutional validity of CEI Act was upheld on 10-4-2008 by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice J.Pasayat, Justice Raveendran, Justice Thakker and Justice Bhandari, in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs Union of India.
The petitioner P.V.Indiresan sought directions / clarrifications (a) that the limit of cut-off marks for admission of students in the OBC quota in Central Educational Institutions be a maximum 10 marks below the cut-off for the general category; (b) that all vacant seats in the reserved quota after the seats have been filled in accordance with (a) above shall automatically revert to the general category. The said application was heard and disposed of by the Constitution Bench in the order passed on 1-10-2008 that the maximum cut-off marks for OBCs be 10% below the cut-off marks of general category candidates.
The Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) interpreted the said order to mean that the minimum marks for admission to be secured by an OBC candidate should not be less than the marks secured by the last student admitted under general category less 10%. The admissions for 2008-09 and 2009-10 were done on that basis. As a result, considerable number of OBC seats got reverted to general category for non-availability of eligible OBC students with required marks. This was challenged by two OBC students in a Writ Petition No. 4857/2010 filed in the Delhi High Court,which passed the following orders on 7-9-2010.

“Procedure followed by the second respondent (JNU) regarding reservation for OBCs is thus declared to be bad. It is declared that the first respondent UOI/Universities are entitled to only fix minimum eligibility criteria for admission in the reserved category at maximum 10% below the minimum eligibility criteria fixed for General (Unreserved) category.The OBC candidates to avail of reservation provided for them in the CEI Act are not required to , in admission test or in the eligibility exam, secure marks within the bandwidth of 10% below the cut-off marks of the last candidate admitted in the General (Unreserved) category.

One P.V.Indiresan, a non-party, prefered an appeal in Civil Appeal No. 7084 of 2011 in the Supreme Court of India.`The counsel of the appellant argued that this case should not be tried by Justice R.V. Raveendran, but the Chief Justice aptly rejected his contention and ordered that the case should be heard only by the Bench of Justices R.V.Raveendran and A.K.Patnaik.

When the senior advocate K.K.Venugopal argued that the quality of education should be maintained, the judges said, “till the OBC candidates also attain the standard of others, you have to shoulder this social burden. You should admit an OBC student who has secured lesser marks, teach him and give him a chance for development. If Ambedkar was refused admission on the basis that he secured only 37 marks, you would not have got the Constitution.”

The bench on 18-8-2011 delivered a purposeful judgement in which the following directions were given.

“The order dated 14-10-2008 means that where minimum eligibility marks in the qualifying examinations are prescribed for admission, say as 50% for general category candidates, the minimum eligibility marks for OBCs should not be less than 45% (that is 50 less 10% of 50). The minimum eligibility marks for OBCs can be fixed at any number between 45 and 50, at the discretion of the Institution. Or, where the candidates are required to take an entrance examination and if the qualifying marks in the entrance examination is fixesd as 40 for general category candidates, the qualifying marks for OBC candidates should not be less than 36% (that is 40 less 10% of 40.)

In their judgement on 18-8-2011 Justices R.V.Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik observed, “ The grievance of OBC candidates is with reference to determining the minimum eligibility / qualifying marks for admission of OBC students with reference to the marks secured by the last candidate admitted under the general category. Their grievance is to linking of their admissions to an uncertain and fluctuating benchmark which would depend upon the quality of the last student admitted under the general category. Adoption of this method defeats the purpose of reservtion of 27% seats for OBC candidates and denies the just and legitimate entitlement of OBCs for admission. It is pointed out that the adoption of such a procedure in 2008-09 and 2009-10 had resulted in large number of seats meant for OBCs being transferred to general category candidates.”

“If the minimum eligibility marks prescribed for an admission in an institution was 50% and a candidate had secured 50%, he could not be denied admission, if a seat was available, based on a criterion ascertained after the last date for admission of applications. No candidate who fulfils the prescribed eligibility criteria and whose rank in the merit list is within the number of seats available for admission, can be turned down, by saying that he should have secured some higher marks based on the marks secured by some other category of student, a factor which is neither known nor ascertained at the time of declaring the admission programme can not be used to disentitle a candidate to admission, who is otherwise entitled for admission.”

“We therefore, dispose of this appeal, affirming the decision dated 7-9-2010 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.”

The Bench said, “If in any Central educational institution, the OBC reservation seat remains vacant, such institutions shall fill the said seats with OBC students. Only if the OBC candidates possessing the minium eligibility marks are not available on the OBC merit list, the OBC seats shall be converted to GC seats. If the last date for admissions has expired, the last date shall be extended till 31-8-2011 as a special case, to enable admission to the vacant OBC seats.”

The Brahmin and upper caste bureaucrats, media and lobby are creating various obstacles in many ways in the implementation of the policy of communal reservation. Without much publicity, a Bill of Amendment has been introduced in the Parliament at the end of the session during 2009 and without giving an opportunity for debate in the Rajya Sabha, and passed which deprives the reservation to SC in admissions in 47 Central educational Institutions. People have to understand properly the conspiracy behind this move. The Dravidar Kazhagam took up the issue and organised a protest at Chennai on 24-2-2009.

The UPSC is following a wrong method of filling up vacancies reserved for OBCs in Central services. All the reserved vacancies are first filled up with the candidates of OBCs and then only the GC category vacancies are filled up with GC candidates. The OBC candidates who have secured higher marks are also entitled for appointed in the vacancies under GC. But the UPSC is denying this opportunity to the OBC candidates. Let us all unite, fight and get the anamoly rectified at an early date!