Friday, Mar 29, 2024 | Last Update : 06:30 PM IST

  India   No relief to Gujarat over quota for poor

No relief to Gujarat over quota for poor

Published : Aug 23, 2016, 12:40 am IST
Updated : Aug 23, 2016, 12:40 am IST

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Gujarat government to not make admissions for general category students under the 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) in the state.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Gujarat government to not make admissions for general category students under the 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) in the state.

Though a three-judge bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud stayed the Gujarat high court order quashing the ordinance till August 29, it said that the stay will be subject to the condition that no admissions should be made on the basis of this quota.

The Gujarat government issued an ordinance in May this year providing 10 per cent quota for EWS in the general category in the wake of widespread agitation by the Patel community for their inclusion in OBC.

Attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Gujarat, pleaded for stay of the HC judgment, dated August 4, pointing out that the HC itself had suspended its judgment for two weeks for filing an appeal. However, senior counsel Gopal Subramanian for the general category students opposed the blanket stay on the ground that the two weeks period had expired on August 17. He said he had no objection if the order was stayed on the same terms imposed by the HC that no admissions should be made on the basis of 10 per cent quota.

The bench then passed a similar order and posted the matter for further hearing on August 29. In its appeal, Gujarat said the high court had failed to consider that the provision as regards the earmarking of 10 per cent for the economically weaker class in the matters of admission and appointment is not “reservation”, but a further classification in the general/ open/ unreserved category of citizens of the state and that, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be held bad.

The state said the high court had failed to consider that mere use of the expression “reservation” in the ordinance for 10 per cent of available seats in the educational institution and in the appointments under the state service will not per se brand the same as reservation contemplated under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.

The state is enjoined to reach out to more deserving people and the task of finding out the most deserving must necessarily be a matter of continuous evolution. The state, therefore, cannot blind itself to the existence of other instances of weakness including the economic weakness as sought to be recognized by the ordinance.

The appeal said it should have been appreciated that in furtherance of the said proposition, the state has promulgated the ordinance and fixed an income limit of Rs 6 lakh per annum as one of the eligibility criteria. It made it clear that the constitutional reservation available to various reserved categories, flowing from Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, has not been affected in any manner by the ordinance. In fact the ordinance is meant only and only for the ‘unreserved category,’ covering all persons not falling within the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes. The appeal prayed for quashing the HC judgment and an interim stay of its operation.

Location: India, Delhi, New Delhi