Recent data on the representation of different communities in education and employment is lacking.
The recent judgment of the Madras High Court quashing the 10.5% special reservation for Vanniyakula Kshatriyas within the overall 20% quota for Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs) has declared reservation in education as a condition. has again highlighted the importance of quantitative data. and employment.
adopted in February on the last day of the last state assembly when the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) was in power, the special quota law, which envisaged a 10.5 percent special reservation for Vanniyakula Kshatriyas belonging to seven sub-castes; 7% for 25 MBC and 68 DNC; And 2.5% for 22 MBCs, the word Go triggered controversy. As expected, the law was challenged before the High Court, which held it unconstitutional for a number of reasons. Even though the Court described the contention that the law was made only on the basis of “sufficient verifiable data on population” of the MBC and DNC enumerated by the Second Backward Classes (BC) Commission, as the “main thrust” of Tamil Nadu’s arguments . The Advocate General, concluded that “there is no data, much less quantitative data, available with the State Government prior to the introduction of the law”.
no exhaustive study
It is a fact that no detailed study has been conducted to collect quantitative data on the representation of different communities in education and employment as the second BC commission, known as its chairman JA Ambashankar, during its existence ( 1982–1985). ) Even the State BC Commission in its report of July 2011 found no reason for the State Government to justify 69% reservation for BCs, MBCs/DNCs and Scheduled Castes (SCs)/Scheduled Tribes (STs) under the 1994 Act. community not given. Details of representation in government services. It presented the number of candidates belonging to only BCs and MBCs/DNCs, other than SCs/STs, who were selected for state services and subordinate services during 2005-09, citing data submitted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. and Other Backward Classes selected by Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai. Even if the mandate given to the BC panel was to come out with its defense of 69% quota, the commission could have provided community-wise details of the recruitments made by the state government.
At least, now, pointing to the absence of data by the High Court as the reason for quashing the 10.5 per cent quota law, the state government is required to compile data on how the benefits of reservation among BCs, MBCs are distributed. A study should be done. and DNC. The study can be done either by the current BC commission or by a special panel, as decided by the previous AIADMK government in December 2020. When the existing BC Commission was set up in July 2020, one of the terms of reference was to examine. To make recommendations on the matter and demand for internal reservation within the reservation provided for the Most Backward Classes. As the Court has clarified, quantitative data is required to provide any kind of quota in favor of any community as the constitutional condition of adequate representation in services is not subject to social and educational backwardness for any community to become one. to be completed together. Eligible for reservation in employment.
internal reservation
The need for internal reservation has been felt for more than one reason. Even in the 1970s and 1980s, two BC commissions found some sections of communities more backward than others. The situation has become even more serious due to non-implementation of creamy layer rule in reservation, which is being opposed by political parties including Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and AIADMK. Ironically, the first BC Commission (1969–70), headed by AN Sattanathan, spoke of it being a tool for “periodically skimming” the top layers of communities. The Ambashankar Commission advocated reservation by forming a group of backwards on the basis of backwardness. It went to the extent of saying that the words “any backward class of citizens” in Article 16(4) of the Constitution “consider” [sic] Multiplicity of backward classes and consequently separate reservation for these classes.
The concept of quota within quota is not new to Tamil Nadu. In March 1989, a new category – Most Backward Classes and Non-Notified Communities – was separated from the BCs and specifically given 20% from the then amount of 50%. In September 2007, 3.5% for Muslims in BC and in January 2009, 3% of the 18% quota for SCs was provided for Arunthathiyar.
ramakrishnan.t@thehindu.co.in
.