04-21-2008, 09:14 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>IIM quota: Contempt plea against Govt in offing </b>
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
<b>The UPA Government's decision to push OBC quota in post-graduate courses is set to face serious legal hurdle with a contempt petition likely to be moved in the Supreme Court against the Centre for violating the majority judgement fixing graduation as the benchmark to measure educational backwardness</b>.
In view of the majority mandate given by the court, experts on the subject believe there is a valid ground to challenge the Government's notification. "We are going to file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court and seek stay of the notification issued by the HRD Ministry," said advocate ML Lahoty.
Â
Lahoty had appeared for the petitioner, the Youth for Equality, before the Constitution Bench that decided the validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2007. He indicated that the petition is its final stages of draft and is likely to be filed within this week.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal agreed that majority view of the Bench was against bringing post-graduate courses under quota ambit. Going with the majority view expressed by Justices Arijit Pasayat, CK Thakker and Dalveer Bhandari in the five-judge Constitution Bench, Venugopal said: "Clearly it forms a majority and the decision of the Government can be examined appropriately under a writ petition."
Venugopal explained that when the bench fails to reach a consensus, the majority view prevails even if the contentious issue does not find a mention in the conclusion agreed upon by all judges. "In the event of any inconsistency when majority judges lay down a ratio on which common consensus is not formed (by the Bench), according to me the ratio will control," he said.
While three of the five-judges stated that that educational backwardness "shall" be measured up to graduation, Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan said that the yardstick to measure educational backwardness cannot be matriculation or Plus 2, though he stopped short of setting any benchmark. The other judge refused to comment on the issue.
<b>Justices Arijit Pasayat and CK Thakker had together held the view that once a person is graduate, he is educationally forward and hence disentitled for reservation benefits under Article 15(5), meant for socially and educationally backward classes, referred to as Other Backward Classes (OBC).</b>
They said, "...With the limited availability of jobs and the spiralling increase in population, secondary or matriculation examination can no longer be considered to be an appropriate benchmark. It has to be at the most graduation." In conclusion, they held, "While determining backwardness, graduation (not technical graduation)... shall be the yardstick for measuring backwardness."
Applying this view, another judge Justice Dalveer Bhandari, sitting in the Bench penned down in his separate judgement that post-graduate courses do not merit reservation.
<b>"Once a candidate graduates from a university, the said candidate is educationally forward and is ineligible for special benefits under Article 15(5) of the Constitution for post-graduate and any further studies thereafter."</b> Giving reasons, the judge said, "Today some entry-level Government positions only accept college graduates." He wrote, "For admission into Master's programmes, such as, Master of Engineering, Master of Law, Master of Arts, etc, none will be a fortiori eligible for special benefits for admission into post graduate or any further studies thereafter."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
<b>The UPA Government's decision to push OBC quota in post-graduate courses is set to face serious legal hurdle with a contempt petition likely to be moved in the Supreme Court against the Centre for violating the majority judgement fixing graduation as the benchmark to measure educational backwardness</b>.
In view of the majority mandate given by the court, experts on the subject believe there is a valid ground to challenge the Government's notification. "We are going to file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court and seek stay of the notification issued by the HRD Ministry," said advocate ML Lahoty.
Â
Lahoty had appeared for the petitioner, the Youth for Equality, before the Constitution Bench that decided the validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2007. He indicated that the petition is its final stages of draft and is likely to be filed within this week.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal agreed that majority view of the Bench was against bringing post-graduate courses under quota ambit. Going with the majority view expressed by Justices Arijit Pasayat, CK Thakker and Dalveer Bhandari in the five-judge Constitution Bench, Venugopal said: "Clearly it forms a majority and the decision of the Government can be examined appropriately under a writ petition."
Venugopal explained that when the bench fails to reach a consensus, the majority view prevails even if the contentious issue does not find a mention in the conclusion agreed upon by all judges. "In the event of any inconsistency when majority judges lay down a ratio on which common consensus is not formed (by the Bench), according to me the ratio will control," he said.
While three of the five-judges stated that that educational backwardness "shall" be measured up to graduation, Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan said that the yardstick to measure educational backwardness cannot be matriculation or Plus 2, though he stopped short of setting any benchmark. The other judge refused to comment on the issue.
<b>Justices Arijit Pasayat and CK Thakker had together held the view that once a person is graduate, he is educationally forward and hence disentitled for reservation benefits under Article 15(5), meant for socially and educationally backward classes, referred to as Other Backward Classes (OBC).</b>
They said, "...With the limited availability of jobs and the spiralling increase in population, secondary or matriculation examination can no longer be considered to be an appropriate benchmark. It has to be at the most graduation." In conclusion, they held, "While determining backwardness, graduation (not technical graduation)... shall be the yardstick for measuring backwardness."
Applying this view, another judge Justice Dalveer Bhandari, sitting in the Bench penned down in his separate judgement that post-graduate courses do not merit reservation.
<b>"Once a candidate graduates from a university, the said candidate is educationally forward and is ineligible for special benefits under Article 15(5) of the Constitution for post-graduate and any further studies thereafter."</b> Giving reasons, the judge said, "Today some entry-level Government positions only accept college graduates." He wrote, "For admission into Master's programmes, such as, Master of Engineering, Master of Law, Master of Arts, etc, none will be a fortiori eligible for special benefits for admission into post graduate or any further studies thereafter."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->