19/07/2016
Our Ref. Reservations-Wake Up Call to All/p1 July 19, 2012
Dr. S.K. Garg, Principal,
Deen Dayal Upadhyay College,
Karampura,
New Delhi - 110015.
RESERVATIONS – WAKE UP CALL TO ALL
Dear Dr. Garg,
With reference to our brief telecon yesterday morning, I wish to submit that reservations in DU as per Constitutional provisions are OK. But, over-enthusiasm to fill up the vacant positions to the extent of 'actual intake' rather than the 'sanctioned strength' appears to be unfair, improper and absurd; and may open the Pandora's box, perhaps, threatening the very basis of highly inflated/erroneous number of reservations, including the purported ‘supernumerary’ seats.
Actual intake in DU admissions may be affected by various provisions, including (a) the DU directive that the admission lists cannot be closed till the last day declared for a particular list; and (b) there are often substantial withdrawals as the candidates float seeking greener pastures ‘at will’. In addition, DU provisions relating to 'supernumerary' admissions (foreign students, war widows/children, PH) add to the actual intake over and above the four legally defined categories making the total 100% (15%SC, 7.5%ST, 27%OBC and 50.5%GEN). The recent communication dated 14.07.2012 from Mr. Ram Dutt, the Ld. Deputy Registrar (Academic) has included the sports/ECA admissions in the said supernumerary category for the first time without appreciating the material fact that this category cannot be stretched indefinitely to include anything under the sun.
I seek liberty to explain the whole situation with the help of a simple example of admissions in B.com(P), Shyam Lal College(M):
In 2006 (pre-OBC period) … Sanctioned strength 100
SC Reservations … 15% …. 15 seats
ST Reservations … 7.55 …. 7.5 seats
General … 77.5% …. 77.5 seats
Thereafter, supernumerary seats as follows:
· Reservation of 5% of seats in each course for the children/widows/wives, etc., or men of the armed forces, para-military personnel, etc.
· Reservation of 3% seats for physically challenged candidates.
· At least 5% seats for foreign students.
In addition, provision exists for ‘not more than 5%’ seats for sports and ECA ‘quota’, though colleges may fix a smaller number, according to their respective circumstances.
Commonsense dictates that these 18% seats with nomenclature ‘supernumerary’ and/or sports/ECA ‘quota’ would be adjusted only from the general seats, as the 22.5% SC/ST seats could not be disturbed.
Then with the enactment of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, effective from 03.01.2007, came the OBC reservations with a stipulation that 27% of the sanctioned strength would be reserved without affecting the 77.5 seats earmarked for the general category. So, a separate provision was to be made for additional 27%, increasing the sanctioned strength from 100 to 127; and the same was to be done during a period of three years from the coming into force of the said enactment.
It is noticeable that nobody asked for increasing the number of seats of SC/ST/OBC beyond the above mentioned figures of 15%, 7.5% and 27% of the sanctioned strength of 100 (which was the base for the entire calculations). But, what the DU has done is to increase the reserved seats for SC/ST/OBC to 23, 12 and 42. Practically, by erroneously changing the base from 100 to 154, the DU increased the SC/ST/OBC seats from 15 to 23, 7.5 to 12 and 27 to 42 respectively; and strictly maintained the general seats to 77.5 only (the 2006 level). Such an interpretation seems to be patently unfair, improper and absurd.
What is even more offending, the Ld. Deputy Registrar has included the sports/ECA categories also in the said supernumerary category. Still more interesting is the fact that the sports and the ECA categories (which are often seen as gateways of ‘backdoor entries’) are claiming to base their calculations on the figure 154 and not 77.5, 100 or 127. The recent directives of the HRDM and the DU to make the appointments on ‘actual intake’ and not ‘sanctioned strength’ seem to be totally reckless and without application of mind.
In Jagdish Negi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was made clear that no class of citizens could be perpetually treated as socially and educationally backward and the State was entitled to review the situation from time to time. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the policy of reservation has to be operated ‘year wise’ and there cannot be any such policy in perpetuity.
Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that ‘the backward class under Art. 16(4) of the Constitution means the class which has no element of ‘creamy layer’ in it. It is mandatory under Art. 16(4) that the state must identify the creamy layer in a backward class and thereafter excluding the creamy layer extend the benefit of reservation to the ‘class’ which remains after such exclusion.’ By excluding those who have already attained economic well being or educational advancement, the special benefits provided under these clauses cannot be further extended to them and if done so, it would be unreasonable, discriminatory or arbitrary, resulting in ‘reverse discrimination’.
For over 60 years, reservations have been given to SCs and STs and it would be expected that certain sections of SCs and STs would have advanced or will advance forward (socially and economically). The same logic and the same rationale, as it applies to OBCs, should also apply to SCs and STs with respect to exclusion of creamy layer. It was observed in M. Nagraj v. Union of India that creamy layer from SCs and STs also needs to be excluded.
In view of these submissions, a detailed analysis is required by the HRDM, UGC and the DU to appreciate the facts and genuine needs of the society in the light of the prominent judicial pronouncements on reservations.
Since the HRDM and the DU have initiated a totally unfair, improper and misconceived approach to the whole issue, something needs to be done on a priority basis to set the controversies at rest. The beginning could be made from the Principals’ Forum, which your good-self happen to head. Let DU come out with exact figures on various categories of seats maintaining the base period as 2006 and the sanctioned seats as 100.
I am a senior citizen and a senior faculty with about four decades of (non-political) academic tenure at the University of Delhi; and I feel pained to see the chaos that has been created in the name of reservations and quotas under various nomenclatures.
I very sincerely hope that the esteemed researchers of the DU system will come forward and contribute significantly to analyze the whole situation which may assist the DU administration to rectify the errors and omissions that we have been committing for many years.
To expedite appropriate consideration and communications, I am mailing this letter to the Hon’ble Dean of Colleges, Ld. Registrar, DUTA office bearers and others who may be interested and/or involved in the issues under reference.
Yours sincerely,
AMAR NATH GUPTA
M.com.,LL.B.,FCS
