Tag Archives: reservation

India should go for Reservation only on economic basis

Lalit Shastri

“Equal  protection of  Law”,  guaranteed by the Constitution, has been explained by Government of India by pointing out that “among  equals, the law  should be equal  and equally  administered. That like should be treated as like. Or  in  other words,  persons  differently  circumstanced need not be treated in the same manner.” 

In India, “Equal protection”  thus is  a guarantee of  equal  treatment of  persons in “equal circumstances”  permitting  differentiation in  different circumstances……

In this way the Indian society has been divided through political machinations and reckless legislation into classes that shall never merge and leave no room for creating a homogenous society. 

“We the people” will have to rise and elect the requisite majority in Parliament so that the Constitution could be amended to ensure social justice on economic basis. There cannot be social justice only by blanket treatment of a section of population, – the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Categories – as “backward”. Also providing for additional 10 percent quota for the economically weaker sections among the general category neither ensures social justice nor helps in speedy progress of the nation.

To address the stiff opposition to this, it was on 7 January 2019, that the Union Council of Ministers presided by Prime Minister Narendra Modi approved a 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in the General category. The cabinet decided that this would be over and above the existing 50% reservation for SC/ST/OBC categories.

Thereafter, the Constitution (One Hundred And Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019 was passed to institutionalise 10% additional quota for the Economically Weaker Students among the General category students.

Question arises, why continue to bracket the Indian Society into such narrow and outdated categories, when only the economic criteria matters and the concept of castes is a matter of history.

The present system does not differentiate between the creamy layer vis-a-vis the SCs and STs. It also discounts the concept of social mobility and allows only a miniscule sections among the reserved category to corner the benefit of reservation.

Reservation should be aimed at uplifting the socially weaker and most deprived sections of society. Seven decades after India became Republic, it is high time we go for a comprehensive census and survey to identify the most deprived sections and their special circumstances. While there are many socially deprived tribes and castes, the problem is reservation is being cornered by a few amongst them like the IAS officers, whose progeny get the advantage of reservation in perpetuity. Reservation should not go beyond one generation. Also those availing reservation should not compete for general quota as this is discriminatory.

At a broader level, we should not ignore the plight of those who compete for jobs and admissions in educational institutions purely on merit. Even under the present reservation regime, till we don’t introduce reservation only on economic basis, there is a need to cap reservation at 50 percent and this should be done by amending the Constitution without leaving any room for ambiguity. It is also important that we enforce 50% quota in all States and the High Courts should take suo moto cognisance if State Governments breach the 50 per cent ceiling.

The Constitution has institutionalised and legitimised the caste system by shrouding a number of castes and classifying them as backward class. People should understand this and build a mandate for reform.

The 77th Constitutional Amendment was made to amend Article 16. In article 16 of the Constitution, after clause (4), the following clause has been inserted:

“(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.”

Article 335 of  the Constitution originally  read as under:

“ The claim  of the members of  the  Scheduled  castes  and  the Scheduled  Tribes shall  be taken into consideration, consistently  with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in  the making  of appointments  to services and posts in  connection with the affairs of the Union or  of the State.” 

The 82nd Amendment Act, 2000, amended the Article 335. The background for the amendment was that the Supreme Court in  the case of S.Vinod  Kumar Vs. Union of India had held that the various instructions of Government  providing for lower qualifying marks/lesser  standard of evaluation in  matter of promotion for  candidates  belonging to SC/ST are not permissible in  view  of  the provisions contained in  Article 335. In view of  this  decision the various orders regarding  lower  qualifying marks/standard  of  evaluation for  SC/ST  in  the matter  of  promotion were withdrawn  by  the Government with effect from  22 July 1997. However,  the Parliament once again restored the relaxations and concession in  promotion and the following  proviso to Art.335 were  added: 

“Provided  that  nothing  in  this  Article shall  prevent in  making  of  any provisions in  favour  of  the members of  the Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes  for  relaxation in  qualifying  marks in  any  examination or lowering  the  standards of  evaluation, for  reservation in  maters  of promotion  to  any  class  or  classes of  services or  posts in  connection with the affairs of  the Union or of a State”.

In pursuance of  this enabling proviso of  Art.335, all relaxations and concession that were withdrawn earlier with effect from 22 July 1997 were restored with effect from 3 October 2000 {DOPT’s O.M.No.36012/23/96Estt.(Res.)-Vol.II dated 3/10/2000}.

Article 16Clause (4-A) states:  Nothing  in this article  shall  prevent  the  State  from  making provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any  class or classes of posts in  the  services  under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, which in the opinion of the State are not adequately  represented in  the service of the State.

Clause (4-B) states: Nothing in this article shall prevent the  State  from considering  any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being  filled up in that year in accordance with any  provision for reservation made  under  clause  (4) or Clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any  succeeding  year  or  years and  such  class  of  vacancies  shall  not  be considered together with  the vacancies of the  year  in which they  are  being  filled  up  for  determining  the  ceiling  of  fifty percent reservation on total number of vacancies of  that  year  (Constitution  81st Amendment Act, 2000).

In the  Indra Sawhney’  case, Supreme Court held that reservation in  promotion is  unconstitutional  but permitted reservation, for  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to continue for  a  period  of five  years(From 16.11.92). Consequent to  this,  the  Constitution  was amended by  the Constitution (Seventy-seventh  Amendment)  Act,  1995 and  Article 16(4-A)  was  incorporated.  This  Article enables the State to provide  for  reservation,  in  matters  of  promotion, in  favour  of  the Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes.  The fact that the words “Backward class” used  in  Article  16(4)  have been instituted in  Article 16(4-A)  by  the words “SCs  &  STs”, itself  precludes consideration of  making  reservation in promotion in  favour  of  any  other  category  of  citizens.

It was only on technical grounds that on 5 May 2021, the Supreme Court of India passed the order underscoring that no “extraordinary circumstances” were made out by the Maharashtra Government in granting separate reservation of Maratha Community by exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling limit of reservation. The Act, 2018 violates the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 16. The exceeding of ceiling limit “without there being any extra-ordinary circumstances” clearly violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution which makes the enactment ultra vires, the Apex Court said.

The people of India should be united, cutting across all barriers of caste and categories. They should be told not to succumb to narrow caste politics and to remain vigilant against political parties that treat them as vote banks.

It is time to build a nationwide people’s movement so that the voters elect their representatives for the next Parliament by giving them the mandate to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of the economically deprived on priority while they play their role as law makers for the all-round growth and development of the country and the prosperity of the people of India.


In India, there are also reserved constituencies in both Parliamentary and State Assembly elections. Citizens from the General category have the voting right but are not eligible to contest in these constituencies. This system was introduced by the Constitution of India in 1950 and was supposed to be in place for the first 10 years. However, it has been stretched continuously every ten years. Under the 104th Constitution Amendment, this reservation has got extended until 2030 and can be extended further with another constitutional amendment. The people of india will have to rise and build a consensus. We cannot perpetually crush the potential of leadership at the grass root level by denying those from the general category the right to represent their constituencies in Parliament and State Assemblies.

What also needs to be shelved once for all is the most divisive and discriminatory “Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989”. Let there be One Nation, One People, and One Criminal Procedure Code.

CIVIL SERVICES EXAM results are out: Reservation for OBC, SC and ST categories exceeds 50 per cent

Newsroom 24×7 Network

New Delhi: The General category candidates – those not belonging to the SC, ST, OBC or the Economically weaker sections – were competing only for 304 that is less than 37 per cent of the 829 appointments to the various All-India services that have been recommended by the UPSC on Tuesday 4 August on the basis of the Civil Services Examination, 2019.


Click here for Civil Services Examination – 2019 result

The total number of candidates recommended for appointments from the OBC (251), SC (129) and ST (67) categories adds to 447 or 54 per cent of the total and that’s more than 50 per cent reservation for these categories. This is against the Supreme Court directive that reservation under no circumstances should exceed 50 per cent.

If one were to add the total number of General Category candidates (304) and the number of Economically Weaker Sections (78) who have been selected for various services, theier total comes to 382 which is 46 per cent of the total posts being filled this year.

The Big Question: When the Supreme Court has fixed a 50 per cent cap, should not the candidates availing reservation be kept within the ambit of the quota and the balance 50 per cent be kept for unreserved candidates only?

The thumb rule should be straight and without ambiguity. Political parties, both ruling and in the Opposition, should ensure overall reservation does not exceed 50% as laid down by the Supreme Court of India, and anybody applying for a seat or job under the quota shall not be eligible for general merit seat. Raising the quota limit beyond 50 per cent is unfair, unjust and discriminatory against those not covered by any quota though they may be economically disadvantaged.

We should not forget that the quota system in its present form is causing reverse social discrimination and it leads to more and more forward communities clamouring for Other Backward Classes (OBC) status and Governments succumbing due to electoral pressures.

Based on the result of the written part of Civil Services Examination, 2019 held by the Union Public Service Commission in September, 2019 and the interviews for Personality Test held in February-August, 2020, following is the list, in order of merit, of candidates who have been recommended for appointment to:
(i) Indian Administrative Service;
(ii) Indian Foreign Service;
(iii) Indian Police Service; and
(iv) Central Services, Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’

  1. A total number of 829 candidates have been recommended for appointment as per following break-up:

In accordance with Rule 16 (4) & (5) of the Civil Services Examination Rules
2019, the Commission is maintaining a consolidated Reserve List of
candidates as under:


Appointment to the various Services will be made according to the number of
vacancies available with due consideration to the provisions contained in
the Rules for the Examination. The number of vacancies reported by the
Government to be filled is as under:

Central Services (Gr ‘A’)196341096435438
Group ‘B’ Services5714421408135
  • includes 45 PwBD vacancies (17 PwBD-1, 09 PwBD-2, 13 PwBD-3 & 06 PwBD-5)

Supreme Court order: Limit of reservation cannot exceed 50%

Newsroom24x7 Network

A Five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court has directed the respondent ­States not to exceed the 50% limit of reservation in future

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has passed an order directing that Governments were bound by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney and other decisions holding that the limit of reservation cannot exceed 50%.

Responding to petition against an Andhra Pradesh Government Notification of year 2000 for 100% reservation of posts of teachers for the ST category in the Scheduled Areas, the Supreme Court has said in its order that “there was no rhyme or reason with the State Government to resort to 100% reservation”.

A five Judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, and comprising Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, and Aniruddha Bose, passed the order on 22 April 2020 in response to a civil appeal by Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others v/s State of Andhra Pradesh and others.

On 10 January 2000, the Government of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh issued an order providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.1/3% was to be women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

While passing the order, the Apex Court addressed the following questions:

The scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India?

(a) Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law?
(b) Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?
(c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III?
(d) Does the exercise of such power override any parallel exercise of power by the President under Article 371D?
(2) Whether 100% reservation is permissible under the Constitution?
(3) Whether the notification merely contemplates a classification under Article 16(1) and not reservation under Article 16(4)?
(4) Whether the conditions of eligibility (i.e., origin and cut-off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in the notification are reasonable?”

Facts of the case

On 5 November 1986, the Andhra Pradesh Governor, in exercise of power under para 5(1) of Schedule V to the Constitution of India, had issued an order directing the posts of teachers in educational institutions in the scheduled tribe areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes only notwithstanding anything contained in any other order or rule or law inforce.

The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal quashed the notification on 25 August 1989.

The Administrative Tribunal order was questioned in Court and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 20 March 1998.

On 25 April 1987, a Government order was issued to amend GOMs.No.275 dated 5 November 1986 to allow the appointment of non-tribals to hold the posts of teachers in the scheduled areas till such time the qualified local tribals were not made available. After that, non­-tribals who were appointed as teachers in the scheduled areas filed Writ Petition No.5276/1993 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad against termination of their services. It was allowed by an order on 5 June 1996 and GOMs. No.73 of 25 April 1987, and the advertisements were held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In a writ appeal, the order of the Single Bench was set aside by the Division Bench vide judgment and order of 20 August 1997. The decision in W.P. No.16198/1988 thus prevailed.

The non­-tribal appointees preferred

Civil Appeal 6437/1998 before the Supreme Court was allowed on 18 December 1998. After the Supreme Court rendered the decision on that date, the State Government issued a fresh notification on 10 January 2000, effectively providing for 100% reservation in respect of appointment to the posts of teachers in the scheduled areas.

The tribunal set aside the GOMs. Aggrieved by this, writ petitions were filed in the High Court, and a 3­-Judge Bench by majority upheld the validity of the Government order.

The majority view opined that historically scheduled areas were treated specially, and affirmative action taken was in the constitutional spirit. The notification was a step for increasing literacy in the scheduled areas and also aimed at providing the availability of teachers in every school in the scheduled areas. 100% reservation can be sustained on the ground that it was based on intelligible differentia, and the classification has nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

The majority view of the High Court Bench was that the Government order became necessary considering the phenomenal absenteeism of the teachers in the schools situated in the scheduled areas and was a step in aid to promote educational developments of tribals. In extraordinary situations, reservation can exceed 50%. The Governor possessed the power to issue the impugned notification under Schedule V, para 5(1) of the Constitution.

The majority view was also that the same overrides all other provisions of the Constitution, including Part III of the Constitution of India.

But the High Court, in the minority view opined that providing 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes in scheduled areas offends the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Governor is not conferred power to make any law in derogation to Part III or other provisions of the Constitution of India in the exercise of his power under Clause I, Para 5 of Schedule V.

It also opined that the reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%. Further that little relaxation was permissible. The rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution could not be treated as an Act of Parliament or State Legislature.

Andhra Pradesh order of January 2000

The AP order of 10 January 2000, validity of which was questioned in Supreme Court, reserved all posts in the educational institutions within the scheduled areas in favour of the local Scheduled Tribes.

Government order challenged in the Apex Court:

“Whereas, under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of Legislature of the State shall not apply to the Scheduled Areas or any part thereof in the State or shall apply to a scheduled area or any part thereof subject to specified exceptions and modifications;

  1. AND WHEREAS, in G.O.Ms.No.275, Social Welfare Department dated 5.11.1986, a notification has been issued exercising the powers conferred under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India directing that the posts of teachers in the Educational Institutions in the Scheduled Areas of State shall be filled in only by the local members of the Scheduled Tribes;
  2. AND WHEREAS, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 25.8.1989 in R.P.Nos.6377 and 6379 of 1988 quashed the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.275, Social Welfare Department dated 5.11.1986 on the ground that the notification issued under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Scheduled to the Constitution of India does not reflect the existence of either a State or a Central Legislation referable for issuing such notification;
  1. AND WHEREAS, the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgement dated 20-8-1997 in Writ Appeal No.874 of 1997 filed by the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodayaram, East Godavari District, directed to continue the petitioners respondents in their respective posts of teachers without any break as temporary employees until replaced by the qualified local tribals as and when such tribals are available to fill up those posts;
  1. AND WHEREAS, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal subsequently while disposing of O.A.No.4598/97 in its order dt.22.9.1997 directed the respondents to follow the statutory rules while making recruitment to the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers and also Telugu Pandits, Grade. In Agency Areas without taking into consideration the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.275, Social Welfare Department, dated 5.11.1986.
  1. AND WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of India while allowing Civil Appeal No.6437/98 in its order dated 18th December 1998, set aside the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the State withdraw the appeals arising out of the S.L.P. Nos.14562-63 of 1989:
  1. AND WHEREAS, the Government considers that rule 4 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh School Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 and rule 22A of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 shall be modified to the extent that only Scheduled Tribe Women shall be appointed in Scheduled Areas against 33 1/3% reservation in respect of direct recruitment;
  2. AND WHEREAS, the consultation of the Tribes Advisory Council has been made as required under sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the constitution of India;
  1. AND WHEREAS, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in order to strengthen the educational infrastructure in the Scheduled Areas, to promote educational development of Tribals, to solve the phenomenal absenteeism of Teachers in the Schools situated in Scheduled Areas and with a view to protect the interests of local tribals have decided to reserve the posts of teachers in favour of local Scheduled Tribes candidates;
  1. AND WHEREAS, the Government considered to re-issue the said orders retrospectively from 5.11.1986 keeping in view the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of Fifth Schedule to the Constitution;
  1. The following notification will be published in part-IV-B Extraordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 10.1.2000.

In exercise of the power conferred by subparagraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India and in Supersession of the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.275,
Social Welfare Department, dated the 5th November 1986, as subsequently amended in G.O. Ms. No.73, Social Welfare Department, dated the 25th April 1988, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that sections 78 and 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (Act 1 of 1982) and sections 169, 195 and 268 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act 13 of 1994) and rule 4 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh School Educational Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.538 Education (Ser. II) Department, dated the 20th November 1998 and rule 22 and 22A of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and any other rules made in this regard shall apply to the appointment of posts of teachers in schools situated, in the Scheduled areas in the State subject to the modification that all the posts of teachers in the Schools situated in Scheduled Areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh shall be filled in by the local Scheduled Tribe candidates only out of whom 33 1/3% shall women.

EXPLANATION:- For the purpose of this notification, the ‘Local Scheduled Tribe Candidate’ means, the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribes notified as such under article 342 of the Constitution of India and the candidates themselves or their parents have been continuously residing in the scheduled areas of the Districts in which they are residents till to date since the 26th January 1950.”

The Supreme Court order says:

The notification in question cannot be treated as classification made under Article 16 (1). Once the reservation has been provided to Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4), no such power can be exercised under Article 16(1). The notification is violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

The Governor in the exercise of powers under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, can exercise the powers concerning any particular Act of the Parliament or the legislature of
the State. The Governor can direct that such law shall not apply to the Scheduled Areas or any part thereof. The Governor is empowered to apply such law to the Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and can also issue a notification with retrospective effect.

The Governor is empowered under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, to direct that any particular Act of Parliament or the Legislature of the State, shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or apply the same with exceptions and modifications. The Governor can make a provision within the parameters of amendment/ modification of the Act of Parliament or State legislature.

The power to make new laws/regulations, is provided in Para 5(2), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution for the purpose mentioned therein, not under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

The power of the Governor under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution does not extend to subordinate legislation, it is with respect to an Act enacted in the sovereign function by the Parliament or legislature of the State which can be dealt with.

In exercise of power under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor cannot override the notification issued by the President in the exercise of powers under Article 371D. The power has to be exercised harmoniously with such an order issued under Article 371D, not in conflict thereof.

The Governor’s power under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution is subject to some restrictions, which have to be observed by the Parliament or the legislature of the State while making law and cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

It is unfortunate that illegal exercise done in 1986 was sought to be protected by yet another unconstitutional attempt by issuing G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 with retrospective effect of 1986, and now after that 20 years have passed.

In the peculiar circumstance, we save the appointments conditionally that the reorganised States i.e. the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana not to attempt a similar exercise in the future. If they do so and exceed the limit of reservation, there shall not be any saving of the appointments made, w.e.f. 1986 till date.

The Supreme Court has directed the respondent ­States not to exceed the 50% limit of reservation in future.

As a sequel to the quashing of G.O. Ms. No.3 of 2000, the appointments made in excess of the permissible reservation cannot survive and should be set aside, the SC order says. However, on behalf of State and other respondents, it was urged that appointments may not be set aside. In the peculiar circumstances, the incumbents, who have been appointed, cannot be said to be at fault and they belong to Scheduled Tribes.

The Apex Court has taken into consideration the “cry within the reserved classes” pointing out that by now, there are affluents and socially and economically advanced classes within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. There is voice by deprived persons of social upliftment of some of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes, but they still do not permit benefits to trickle down to the needy. Thus, there is a struggle within, as to worthiness for entitlement within reserved classes of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other backward classes.

The the opinion of the Supreme Court, it was rightly urged by Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhawan that the Government is required to revise the lists. It can be done presently without disturbing the percentage of reservation so that benefits trickle down to the needy and are not usurped by those classes who have come up after obtaining the benefits for the last 70
years or after their inclusion in the list. The Government is duty bound to undertake such an exercise as observed in Indra Sawhney and as constitutionally envisaged.

Addressing another important question on the issue of the cutoff date of residence for fixing reservation under the notification quashed as the government order in question required candidate or the parents to reside in the area continuously w.e.f. 26 January 1950 to date, the Suypreme Court has said there is no rhyme or reason to require continuous residence for last 50 years or more.

Public employment envisages opportunity to all, who have been provided reservation is by way of exception to do the compensatory jobs. The condition above deprives the scheduled tribes who are permanent residents of the areas and have settled after the said cutoff

date. Thus, the classification created is illegal, unreasonable, and arbitrary. Making such a provision that a person should be a resident on or before 26th January 1950 to date is discriminatory and has the effect of exceeding the purpose of providing the reservation. It defeats the rights of other similar tribes who might have settled after 26 January 1950 in the area taken care of in the Presidential Order under Article 371­D. It is violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 16 of the Constitution and has no rationale with the purpose sought to be achieved. It creates a class within a class, and the classification made failed to qualify the parameters of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Madhya Pradesh Cabinet approves 10 percent reservation for economically weaker sections

Newsroom24x7 Network

Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh Cabinet, chaired by Chief Minister Kamal Nath, today 26 June 2019, approved 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) from the general category.

Those with annual income above Rs. 8 lakh or owning 5 acres of agricultural land (both irrigated or barren, rugged and rocky land), residential property of more than 1200 square feet in the municipal Corporation area, residential property of 1500 sq. Ft. in Municipality area and 1800 sq ft in the Nagar Panchayat area will not be entitled to avail the benefit of reservation for the economically weaker sections. No limit has been set in rural areas.

The Madhya Pradesh Cabinet decision is significant as ahead of parliamentary elections, Modi Cabinet, in its earlier stint, had on 7 January 2019 approved 10 per cent reservation for the economically weaker sections cutting across religious lines in government jobs and education.

This decision was aimed at granting reservation to the general or the unreserved category of candidates from the economically backward or deprived sections.

The Union Cabinet decision to introduce quota for economically weaker sections came in the wake of BJP’s ouster from power in the Hindi heartland States- Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan.

The Parliament approved Constitution amendment [One Hundred and Twenty Fourth Amendment Bill, 2019] in the second week of January 2019 to provide 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education to the economically weaker sections in the general category.

Also Check this: Modi Government goes for 10 percent quota for economically weaker sections ahead of Lok Sabha Polls