Not 27%, reserve 50% med seats for OBCs in AIQ: HC to Centre

Not 27%, reserve 50% med seats for OBCs in AIQ: HC to Centre

Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com

Chennai:4.8.2021

The Madras high court on Tuesday said that both the high court and the Supreme Court orders made it clear that reservation provided by Tamil Nadu (50%) for OBCs must be applied in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats surrendered by it for admission to medical courses and it cannot be 27% as provided in the central law.

A clarification to this effect was made by the first bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P D Audikesavalu on Tuesday while hearing a contempt of court plea moved by the DMK against the Centre for failing to implement the court’s ruling on the quota issue.

On Tuesday, additionalsolicitor general R Shankaranarayanan said the Centre had decided to provide 27% reservation to OBCs in AIQ seats surrendered by the state and 10% EWS reservation to those not covered under any existing reservation.

Opposing it, senior advocate P Wilson for the DMK contended that the court’s order dated July 27, 2020, unequivocally accepted that reservation in terms of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 would be applicable for the AIQ seats. This would mean that 50% reservation must be provided to OBCs in AIQ seats as followed by the state and not 27%, he argued.

Court adjourns hearing to Aug 9 for Centre to respond

Recording the same, the court pointed out that even the Supreme Court in its order had observed: “It is no doubt true that the high court accepted the submissions of the appellants that the 1993 Act can be made applicable to AIQ seats...”

Opposing the same, the additional solicitor general said, “even the high court judgment noticed that AIQ seats were a separate class which would not be governed by the principle of domicile and, accordingly, a committee was constituted by this court, which was approved by the Supreme Court, to ascertain the extent of reservation that would be desirable in the AIQ seats.”

To this, the bench said, “prima facie, such submission militates against the purpose indicated in both the high court and the Supreme Court orders for constituting the committee.”

Both orders indicated that the committee would work out the modalities of implementation of the reservation for OBC candidates to AIQ seats in this state. If it is a question of implementation, the committee was not tasked with the duty of ascertaining the extent of reservation or the inter se allocation thereof between groups, the court added.

The bench then adjourned the hearing to August 9 for the Centre to respond.

... Even the high court judgment noticed that AIQ seats were a separate class which would not be governed by the principle of domicile and, accordingly, a committee was constituted by this court, which was approved by the Supreme Court, to ascertain the extent of reservation that would be desirable in the AIQ seats

R SHANKARANARAYANAN

Additional solicitor general