09-12-2007, 01:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>70% SC-ST children don't pass Class 10 </b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
The Government's OBC reservation policy under scrutiny of the Supreme Court got a jolt on Tuesday after the anti-quota petitioners produced official reports to indicate that for six decades over 70 per cent children among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes do not reach Class X.
Mocking at the Government's move to accommodate socially and educationally-backward classes in IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, and other premier central institutions, senior advocate PP Rao, arguing for one of the petitioners stated before a Constitution Bench that without fulfilling the constitutional obligation of Right to Education to each backward child, how could the Government think about their reservation in higher educational institutions.
The court through past decisions had held that a person could be considered educationally backward if he does not possess a basic education till Class X. Arguing against the unreasonable demand of the Centre to create 27 per cent for OBC in premier central institutions, Rao told the court that such a law, instead of bridging the gap has the potential to widen the existing disparities.
He said, <b>"The state's failure to provide free and compulsory education at least to the children of backward classes, SCs and STs for six decades and the high rate of dropouts among them in Class I to X leads to the irresistible conclusion that the State is concerned more about the haves among the backward classes rather than the have-nots."</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
The Government's OBC reservation policy under scrutiny of the Supreme Court got a jolt on Tuesday after the anti-quota petitioners produced official reports to indicate that for six decades over 70 per cent children among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes do not reach Class X.
Mocking at the Government's move to accommodate socially and educationally-backward classes in IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, and other premier central institutions, senior advocate PP Rao, arguing for one of the petitioners stated before a Constitution Bench that without fulfilling the constitutional obligation of Right to Education to each backward child, how could the Government think about their reservation in higher educational institutions.
The court through past decisions had held that a person could be considered educationally backward if he does not possess a basic education till Class X. Arguing against the unreasonable demand of the Centre to create 27 per cent for OBC in premier central institutions, Rao told the court that such a law, instead of bridging the gap has the potential to widen the existing disparities.
He said, <b>"The state's failure to provide free and compulsory education at least to the children of backward classes, SCs and STs for six decades and the high rate of dropouts among them in Class I to X leads to the irresistible conclusion that the State is concerned more about the haves among the backward classes rather than the have-nots."</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->