Open
Forum
New Delhi, 5 September 2018
Creamy Layer
QUOTA FOR WELL-OFF IRRATIONAL?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The Government’s
decision, of implementing the concept of ‘creamy layer’ by disallowing a section
of OBCs reservation benefits in the UPSC examination, is welcome. It may be
recalled that 12 OBCs were left out of the UPSC list in 2012, 11 in 2015, four
in earlier years and 29 this year, as per figures compiled by the aggrieved
group. The axe on these OBCs this year comes despite a Delhi High Court
judgment in March which slammed the Centre’s method of calculating the ‘creamy
layer’ for wards of employees of PSUs.
The Centre, in recent
years, has been resorting to different methods to calculate ‘creamy layer’ for
employees of Central, State governments and the PSUs. According to government
guidelines while Group A and Group B are ineligible for Mandal quota, others
are eligible if their annual income from other sources does not exceed Rs 5
lakh. While the DoPT has been
determining the ‘creamy layer’ for PSU background by including the salaries of
parents, it has been excluding the salaries of parents employed in Central and
State governments, putting the first category at a serious disadvantage. This,
no doubt, was a faulty approach and all those with family income say over Rs 9
to Rs 10 lakh per annum need not be considered.
If a rich OBC is seen
as someone who should no longer be eligible for the same reservations available
to a poor OBC, surely the same logic should apply to SC/ST as well? The
government can argue that the Constitution does not mandate any such division
into rich and poor SC/ST, but if the Constitution was such a holy book, it
wouldn’t have been amended 101 times since 1950. And, if the government is
going to go by the Constitution, it would do well to note that the founding
fathers wanted the SC/ST reservation for just 10 years, but this was extended
from time to time by an amendment to the Constitution.
One may quote the old
example, if a Jagjivan Ram’s daughter can avail of reservations there is
something clearly wrong in the scheme. And if, like last year, the government
decided that OBCs, who are working in PSUs, will no longer qualify for
reservations, not applying this to SC/ST implies that the benefits will always
be cornered by the better off SC/STs.
Recall, in the case
of M Nagaraj (2006) that dealt with reservations in promotions for SC/ST, the
Supreme Court ruled that while the government was free to mandate this, “the State
will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness
so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50 per cent or obliterate the creamy layer
or extend the reservation indefinitely.”
With unemployment
rates increasing at a fast pace, it is those from the poorer sections who need
to be considered first. The basic concept of reservations was to give extra
facilities to those from backward communities which meant that these sections
are poor and economically deprived. There is no logic to extend reservations to
SC/ST candidates whose family incomes are quite high and thus do not fall
within the ambit of economically deprived section.
Few years ago, a
group of economists had pointed out there is no logic to extend reservations to
those families who are well-settled. Thus, the question of uplifting their
conditions does not rise and, as such, reservations should look into the dual
criteria of backward communities as also the economic condition i.e. family
income. Moreover, it was also argued that reservations should only be at the
entry point and not for subsequent promotions.
The result of the
reservation policy followed in the country has resulted in SC/ST candidates at
the helm of affairs in PSUs and government getting jobs, irrespective of
whether they have the necessary efficiency and expertise. This obviously needs
to change for improving governance and increasing efficiency in the government
sector.
In this connection,
it may be pertinent to point out that since a section seems to be justifying
reservations by referring to the Constitution, one should not forget Article
335 that deals with it and clearly states: “The claims of the members of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently
with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of
appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union
or of a State”.
When is the last time
the government did an exercise to see if “efficiency of administration” hadn’t
been compromised? And, in the case of teachers in schools/colleges, the
yardstick has to be quality of the teaching, not efficiency of
administration—given the multitude of teacher-tests, and surely scoring should
be done to see if quality has been given the go-by?
The government has
not yet adhered to suggestions that those who come from well-off families, whether
belonging to SC, ST or OBC categories, should not be given reservations, fearing
a possible backlash from leaders of these communities, who are mostly corrupt,
and keeping an eye on the vote bank. But there is need to be strict in this
regard as there is no logic in providing reservations to the so-called ‘creamy
layer’. It needs to be remembered that when someone is given reservation, this
happens at the cost of meritorious candidates from the general category.
Besides, there are
wanton reservations even in the highly competitive medical exams, whether for
MBBS or MD or MS where the family income is not considered. It is well-known
that those who qualify in the written exams are quite meritorious and finally a
major portion of seats are reserved. It has been found that in the reserved
category, candidates mostly from well-off sections get the seats, only because
they fall within the ambit of reservation.
Several candidates
have told the undersigned how reservation for those who are quite rich, nor
just middle class, got the facility only because they belong to the reserved category.
Thus the discrimination in such matters towards those belonging to the general
category needs to be checked to ensure there is no social injustice.
Sadly, a section of
politicians have misguided the nation on what actually is social justice, ignoring
the economic factor. This is because Indian politicians, by and large, have not
cared for those who are truly poor and impoverished sections, which need real help
and support to join the mainstream of life and activity. This has to change and
reservations must focus primarily on the economic status of the candidate and perhaps
the caste/community to which he/she belongs. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|