Horizontal quotas are defeating purpose of reservation, says Madras high court
TNN | Jan 7, 2020, 04.57 AM IST
TNN | Jan 7, 2020, 04.57 AM IST
CHENNAI: Madras high court has observed that horizontal reservations such as disability, destitute women, ex-servicemen and for persons whose land were acquired for public propose are causing a lot of confusion in public employment.
Cautioning that they may defeat the very purpose of vertical, caste-based reservation in public employment, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said: “This list (horizontal reservation) keeps increasing day by day and at a particular point of time, this will virtually eclipse the rights of the persons who will be otherwise entitled under the vertical reservation.”
The judge was passing the orders after denying reservation for persons whose land had been acquired for a public purpose. Holding that the ‘priority certificate’ issued to such land-losers is not a constitutional right, Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed a plea seeking preferential recruitment by Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB).
A petitioner, R Abdulkadhar, cited a December 18, 1978 order which added one more horizontal reservation for the members of the family whose lands had been acquired by government for a public purpose. Such persons were issued priority certificates to claim such reservation. While all recruitments for government service provided such a reservation, it was been denied in a recent TRB recruitment, he alleged.
Justice Venkatesh said: “The government thought it fit to create such a reservation only to ensure that persons whose lands have been acquired and who lost their livelihood by virtue of such acquisition must be given some preference. This cannot be mechanically applied in all cases, since, the persons whose lands are acquired are paid compensation.”
“The petitioner cannot insist that TRB must necessarily provide for the reservation for persons having priority certificate. This is not some constitutional right guaranteed for the candidates. It is always left open to the recruiter concerned depending upon the nature of post. They cannot be compelled to provide reservation for all the heads under the horizontal reservation in every recruitment,” Justice Anand Venkatesh said.
Cautioning that they may defeat the very purpose of vertical, caste-based reservation in public employment, Justice N Anand Venkatesh said: “This list (horizontal reservation) keeps increasing day by day and at a particular point of time, this will virtually eclipse the rights of the persons who will be otherwise entitled under the vertical reservation.”
The judge was passing the orders after denying reservation for persons whose land had been acquired for a public purpose. Holding that the ‘priority certificate’ issued to such land-losers is not a constitutional right, Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed a plea seeking preferential recruitment by Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB).
A petitioner, R Abdulkadhar, cited a December 18, 1978 order which added one more horizontal reservation for the members of the family whose lands had been acquired by government for a public purpose. Such persons were issued priority certificates to claim such reservation. While all recruitments for government service provided such a reservation, it was been denied in a recent TRB recruitment, he alleged.
Justice Venkatesh said: “The government thought it fit to create such a reservation only to ensure that persons whose lands have been acquired and who lost their livelihood by virtue of such acquisition must be given some preference. This cannot be mechanically applied in all cases, since, the persons whose lands are acquired are paid compensation.”
“The petitioner cannot insist that TRB must necessarily provide for the reservation for persons having priority certificate. This is not some constitutional right guaranteed for the candidates. It is always left open to the recruiter concerned depending upon the nature of post. They cannot be compelled to provide reservation for all the heads under the horizontal reservation in every recruitment,” Justice Anand Venkatesh said.
No comments:
Post a Comment