Order of Implementation, EWS Quota Result

The basic objective of reservation policy in newly independent India This was to level the playing field for the most marginalized sections, who were stigmatized and discriminated against because of their birth in specific caste and tribal groups. While these groups were also economically disadvantaged, this was not the main argument for establishing compensatory discrimination in favor of these groups.

Over the decades, the means of reservation has been expanded to include more groups, sparking a heated debate about the general principle of affirmative action and which groups are eligible to be beneficiaries. These disputes have resulted in complex legal matters, with rules providing the nuts-and-bolts mechanics that guide the implementation of reservation policy on the ground.

Read also: OBCs not in central list can apply for central government posts under EWS: DoPT

This article draws attention to an important imminent implementation decision regarding Economically Weaker Section (EWS) QuotaAnd it shows how the order of implementation will vary the results.

The reservation system in India takes two forms: vertical reservation (VR), which was defined as of 2019 for stigmatized and marginalized social groups (SC, ST and OBC); and Horizontal Reservation (HR), applicable to cross-cutting categories such as women, people with disabilities (PWD), domicile, etc. As long as the VR system was social group-based, no individual was eligible for multiple VR categories, as no individual could belong to multiple castes or tribal groups.

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act in 2019, known as the 10% quota for the so-called EWS, fundamentally changed the fundamental cause of reservation by opening up VR to groups that are not based on hereditary social group identity (caste). are not defined in the context. or tribe). EWS status is transient (in which individuals may fall or escape), but are permanent markers of social group identity.

While this meant that, in theory, a person could belong to two VR categories (e.g., SC and EWS), the amendment explicitly removed individuals who already had a VR (SC, ST, or OBC) are eligible from the purview of EWS reservation. As a result of this exclusion, a person may still only be eligible for a maximum of one vertical category.

The exclusion of SC, ST, OBC from the purview of EWS reservation was immediately challenged in the court on the ground that it violates individual right to equality (which broadly corresponds to Article 14-18 of the Indian Constitution).

On the last day of hearing in the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, the following “compromise” offer G Mohan Gopal: Do not repeal the amendment but interpret the language of the amendment in such a way that SC, ST, OBC are not excluded from the purview of EWS reservation.

Overlapping VR Categories and Opacity

Allowing overlapping of VR categories (such as SC and EWS, etc.) creates a significant ambiguity under the current legal framework, particularly stemming from the Indra Sawhney case (1992) judgment. Under this, any member of a reserved category who is entitled to an open category status on the basis of “merit” (examination) score should be awarded an open category status and not slotted under VR status should go. Technically, this implies that open category posts should be allotted on the basis of merit in the first phase, and VR posts should be allotted to eligible persons in the second phase. This process is called the “over-and-above” choice rule. Literature. This should be contrasted with the “guaranteed minimum” rule that would guarantee minimum positions to members of beneficiary groups, regardless of whether they entered through reserved or open (“merit”) positions.

When VR categories are mutually exclusive, i.e. no individual can be a member of multiple vertical categories, it is completely unimportant in which order the vertical categories are processed with respect to each other. However, if individuals can belong to two vertical categories, then the relative processing sequence of the vertical categories becomes very important, as Sonmez and his fellow economist Utku Onwar show in theirs. 2022 paper,

How will indexing matter? EWS-I: Consider the scenario where EWS is located immediately after the open class seats, before other VR categories. In his 2019 paper with economist Rajesh Ramachandran, Deshpande showed that under the current income limit for EWS reservation, over 98% of the population is eligible, i.e. almost everyone is eligible for EWS reservation. If the EWS reservation is filled first, the result will be the same considering the EWS posts as open positions.

This will effectively make EWS reservation redundant. Since the richest applicants are not eligible for EWS, the actual result will be slightly different, but not entirely because the richest 2% may not even apply to public institutions where quotas are applied.

EWS-FINAL: If the allotment of EWS posts is done after filling up all other VR posts, then this issue will not arise. Now, while all individuals earning less than the EWS threshold are equally eligible for EWS posts (which are still effectively all individuals), the system assigns EWS positions to eligible individuals who have the highest qualifying scores. But since some high-scoring individuals from SC, ST and OBC will be admitted under their respective quota, this sequencing will make EWS posts more accessible to members of the forward castes.

which order is better

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the two routes show very different policy outcomes. We’re highlighting the fact that overlapping VR categories leads to a major ambiguity (or flaw) in the system. If the objective is to apply EWS uniformly to existing VR categories, then EWS-I should be adopted with the recognition that this indexing will effectively convert EWS to the currently open category status. If the objective is to have minimal interference in the amendment, then EWS-Last should be adopted with the recognition that this sequencing will still tilt the EWS category in favor of the forward castes. Since the impact of these two routes will be quite different, it would be best if this subtle aspect of EWS reservation is carefully assessed and integrated into the implementation of the policy.

What if the current income limit of EWS category is changed (reduced)? This will change the calculation to some extent as poor persons from all social groups (including non-SC-ST-OBC) will be eligible. In this scenario, wealthy (above the estimated new income cut-off) SC-ST-OBC individuals would be eligible for social group-based VR positions only. However, changing the income limit is likely to open a new Pandora box, especially in the absence of reliable income data. Realistically, shifting the income cut-off for EWS seems impossible.

Therefore, the court would be advised to consider the implications of the implementation routes and ensure that there is no ambiguity, i.e., no loopholes. Ambiguity in reservation rules has led to court cases leading to long delays in filling up the posts. Given the enormity of the unemployment situation as well as the importance of bridging social gaps, the urgency of formulating an optimal implementation strategy cannot be overstated.

Ashwini Deshpande is Professor of Economics at Ashoka University. Tefun Sonmez is a professor of economics at Boston College.