09-15-2008, 09:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>SC cheer for non-quota aspirants </b>
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
'Unutilised seats under OBC quota should go to general students'
The IIT and IIM aspirants can heave a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court on <b>Monday said seats remaining unfilled under the 27 per cent OBC quota must go to general category candidates</b>.Â
Responding to separate petitions filed by the Pan-IIM Association, an NGO, and former IIT-Chennai director PV Indresan, a five-judge Bench said that its judgment okaying 27 per cent OBC reservation in Central educational institutions on April 10 this year clearly said that vacant seats under the OBC quota must go to the non-reserved category.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate KK Venugopal,<b> alleged that 432 seats under the quota were lying vacant, with the Central Government refusing to permit general category students to use these. </b>The petitioners accused the Centre of keeping vacant seats unfilled under the 27 per cent quota norm, violating the apex court's ruling of April 10.
<b>"It is a national waste.</b> Justices Arijit Pasayat, CK Thakker and Dalveer Bhandari of the five-judge Bench held <b>that there cannot be any vacancy; it has to be reverted to the general category,"</b> Venugopal said, adding<b>, "Reservation was not intended for the purpose that if they are not there, it would not be available to others.</b>
Justice Pasayat said, <b>"We have said it (vacant seats in reserved category) should go to the non-reserved category in case there are not enough reserved candidates."</b> Seconding the observation, Justice Thakker said,<b> "It's not in the larger interest of the nation to keep seats vacant." </b>The third to follow suit was Justice Bhandari, who responded, "Where is the confusion? There is no confusion."
The judges stated that the intention of passing the order was to ensure that additional seats were made available to the maximum number of students. "The position is very clear. Our intention was not to leave anything vacant. Fill them up... if not by reserved category, then by non-reserved category."
Solicitor General GE Vahanvati, representing the Centre, sought time to verify the claims of the petitioner. He informed the Bench that details regarding the vacancy, if any, would be checked and intimated to the court within two weeks. The Bench, also comprising Chief Justice KG Balakrishhnan and Justice RV Raveendran, also asked the Solicitor General to respond on the aspect of fixation of cut-off marks for OBC candidates. This formed the other point of clarification sought by the petitioners.
On April 10, the apex court had said in a majority decision that cut-off marks for OBCs should be such that merit was not compromised. While Justices Pasayat and Thakker held that the cut-off be fixed at five marks below the general category cut-off, Justice Bhandari held this mark to be not less than 10 marks. Venugopal wanted to know which should be the acceptable standard.
In response, Justice Bhandari said, "Both these are intended so that they (Centre) do not deviate from merit." For this reason, Justice Pasayat held, they used the words "it is desirable"; if a general category candidate gets entry at 50 marks, the reserved category candidate should not enter at as low as 25. "We hope the Government bears it in mind," he added.
Vahanvati submitted that the Centre had not gone beyond that rule. Posting the matter for hearing on September 29, the court asked the Centre to file a response by then.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
'Unutilised seats under OBC quota should go to general students'
The IIT and IIM aspirants can heave a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court on <b>Monday said seats remaining unfilled under the 27 per cent OBC quota must go to general category candidates</b>.Â
Responding to separate petitions filed by the Pan-IIM Association, an NGO, and former IIT-Chennai director PV Indresan, a five-judge Bench said that its judgment okaying 27 per cent OBC reservation in Central educational institutions on April 10 this year clearly said that vacant seats under the OBC quota must go to the non-reserved category.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate KK Venugopal,<b> alleged that 432 seats under the quota were lying vacant, with the Central Government refusing to permit general category students to use these. </b>The petitioners accused the Centre of keeping vacant seats unfilled under the 27 per cent quota norm, violating the apex court's ruling of April 10.
<b>"It is a national waste.</b> Justices Arijit Pasayat, CK Thakker and Dalveer Bhandari of the five-judge Bench held <b>that there cannot be any vacancy; it has to be reverted to the general category,"</b> Venugopal said, adding<b>, "Reservation was not intended for the purpose that if they are not there, it would not be available to others.</b>
Justice Pasayat said, <b>"We have said it (vacant seats in reserved category) should go to the non-reserved category in case there are not enough reserved candidates."</b> Seconding the observation, Justice Thakker said,<b> "It's not in the larger interest of the nation to keep seats vacant." </b>The third to follow suit was Justice Bhandari, who responded, "Where is the confusion? There is no confusion."
The judges stated that the intention of passing the order was to ensure that additional seats were made available to the maximum number of students. "The position is very clear. Our intention was not to leave anything vacant. Fill them up... if not by reserved category, then by non-reserved category."
Solicitor General GE Vahanvati, representing the Centre, sought time to verify the claims of the petitioner. He informed the Bench that details regarding the vacancy, if any, would be checked and intimated to the court within two weeks. The Bench, also comprising Chief Justice KG Balakrishhnan and Justice RV Raveendran, also asked the Solicitor General to respond on the aspect of fixation of cut-off marks for OBC candidates. This formed the other point of clarification sought by the petitioners.
On April 10, the apex court had said in a majority decision that cut-off marks for OBCs should be such that merit was not compromised. While Justices Pasayat and Thakker held that the cut-off be fixed at five marks below the general category cut-off, Justice Bhandari held this mark to be not less than 10 marks. Venugopal wanted to know which should be the acceptable standard.
In response, Justice Bhandari said, "Both these are intended so that they (Centre) do not deviate from merit." For this reason, Justice Pasayat held, they used the words "it is desirable"; if a general category candidate gets entry at 50 marks, the reserved category candidate should not enter at as low as 25. "We hope the Government bears it in mind," he added.
Vahanvati submitted that the Centre had not gone beyond that rule. Posting the matter for hearing on September 29, the court asked the Centre to file a response by then.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->