Premium
This is an archive article published on January 23, 2019

Supreme court upholds faculty quota order: SC, ST, OBC teacher count to go down

The HRD Ministry, meanwhile, drafted a Bill to overturn the UGC order and sent it to the Cabinet for approval — there has been no development so far on that front

Supreme court upholds faculty quota order: SC, ST, OBC teacher count to go down A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indira Banerjee rejected the Centre’s special leave petition which challenged the April 7, 2017 order of the Allahabad High Court. (File photo)

The Supreme Court Tuesday upheld the order of the Allahabad High Court which ruled that reservation in faculty positions in universities should be calculated department-wise and not by taking the total seats in a university as basis.

A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indira Banerjee rejected the Centre’s special leave petition which challenged the April 7, 2017 order of the Allahabad High Court.

In April 2018, the HRD Ministry filed an SLP following a political furore over the University Grants Commission’s March 5 order of the same year, announcing that the number of reserved faculty posts across universities and colleges would be calculated department-wise and not based on the aggregate vacant posts.

Story continues below this ad

The change, first reported by The Indian Express on October 23, 2017, was based on the Allahabad High Court verdict.
The Centre argued that calculating the vacancies department-wise would reduce the number of seats for the reserved category and defeat the object of implementing the reservation policy.

Explained
Legislative route an option

The immediate effect of the Supreme Court verdict will be a drastic drop in the number of SC, ST and OBC teachers in universities. This can be overturned only through a Bill, which has been pending with the Union Cabinet for almost a month.

Although the government did not withdraw the UGC order, it asked all universities to put their recruitment on hold till the Supreme Court decided its SLP. The HRD Ministry, meanwhile, drafted a Bill to overturn the UGC order and sent it to the Cabinet for approval — there has been no development so far on that front.

The Allahabad High Court had said that if the university was taken as the unit for every level of teaching and the roster applied, it would result in some departments/subjects having all reserved candidates and some only unreserved candidates which would then be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it quashed Clause 6 (c) and 8 (a) (v) of the guidelines framed by the UGC.

Clause 6 (c) of the guidelines said posts should be grouped together wherever more than one university is functioning under a single Act or where more than one college functions under one university, to avoid artificial reduction of cadre strength in order to avoid reservation.

Story continues below this ad

Clause 8 (a) (v) called for implementation of the roster system as per directions of the Supreme Court in the 1995 case R K Sabharwal and Others vs State of Punjab and Others. A five-judge Constitution Bench had ruled that reservation prescribed shall be given effect in government services in accordance with a roster to be maintained in each department. The roster, it said, would be implemented in the form of a running account from year to year.

Questioning this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, contended that the State was under a duty pursuant to Article 16(4) of the Constitution to make special provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favour of members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe if they were not adequately represented in the services under the State.

The government contended that implementing the reservation policy by taking each department/subject as a unit, instead of taking the university as a unit, would lead to a situation where several departments of a university would have single post cadres (e.g. post of one professor in a given department) which would then be outside the purview of the reservation law.

Appearing for the respondent, advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed out that the Supreme Court, in a January 2017 decision in the Sanjiv Kumar vs State of UP and Others, upheld the validity of another April 2009 decision of the Allahabad High Court — in Dr Viswsajeet Singh and Others vs State of UP and Others — which also said that “the rules of reservation and roster shall be applied collegewise and subjectwise when there are plurality of post”.

Story continues below this ad

In February 2008, the UGC had advised the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) to follow the roster system cadre-wise instead of applying it department-wise. Consequently, the university issued advertisement in July 2016 for filling up the vacancies of various teaching and equivalent posts. This was challenged in the High Court which directed universities to make fresh roster, taking department/subject as a unit and not the university.

Experts said reservation based on department or subject as a unit meant that departments with single post cadres — usually the position of a professor — would be outside the purview of reservation. This would drastically reduce the number of SC, ST and OBC teachers in higher education.

Citing an example using the new formula, experts said departments with two or more faculty posts, but less than 15 in a cadre, will have only one reserved for an SC candidate at serial number 7 and for an ST candidate at serial number 14. So if a department has only six associate professor-level posts, none will be reserved for SC and ST candidates. Reservation will only be implemented through rotation which, experts said, could take years.

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More

Ritika Chopra, an award-winning journalist with over 17 years of experience, serves as the Chief of the National Bureau (Govt) and National Education Editor at The Indian Express in New Delhi. In her current role, she oversees the newspaper's coverage of government policies and education. Ritika closely tracks the Union Government, focusing on the politically sensitive Election Commission of India and the Education Ministry, and has authored investigative stories that have prompted government responses. Ritika joined The Indian Express in 2015. Previously, she was part of the political bureau at The Economic Times, India’s largest financial daily. Her journalism career began in Kolkata, her birthplace, with the Hindustan Times in 2006 as an intern, before moving to Delhi in 2007. Since then, she has been reporting from the capital on politics, education, social sectors, and the Election Commission of India. ... Read More

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement