Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:35:43 EDT
From: Deepak Srivastava <DXS23@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Indian court bans quotas...

In article <9207210049.AA04258@decit.if.uidaho.edu>, std2037@if.uidaho.edu (Alok
Shukla) says:
>
>>>   INDIAN COURT BANS QUOTAS THAT GIVE SHARE OF SCIENCE POSTS TO OUTCASTS
>
>>Nice way to headline an article. "Outcasts"?!
>
> This is just to clarify that the title of the article was *not* chosen by
> me -- I reproduced it verbatim from Nature (July 2nd issue). I thought
> I had taken sufficient care to make this point evident, but I guess
> it wasn't enough afterall.
>
> --Alok Shukla
>
>>Shankar Unni                           E-Mail: shankar@sgi.com
>>Silicon Graphics Inc.                  Phone:  +1-415-390-2072

The reporting of this news in the journal 'Nature' was not upto
the mark. That is why people are puzzeled by not only its title
as well as why the news has not attracted any attention of poli-
ticians of oppertune.

The following is the news content based on my recollection from
reading TOI.

Indian High Court Bans Cast Based Quota in Science:

In a remarkably refreshing judgement a justice, Mr. Khusro,
allowed an OBC (Other Backward Casts) temporary chemistry
teacher to be converted into a permanent appointment in the
same rank reserved only for SC&ST candidates. The OBC can-
didate was teaching as a temporary appointee for the last
few years. This year when he applied for the permanent post,
reserved for SC&ST but no qualified candidate available, his
appointment was confirmed by the management of the college
but was rejected by the district school officer (a government
agency). The district school officer's main contention was that
the candidate was not from SC&ST but from OBC categories.
The teacher appealed in court and got a judgement in his favor
in Allahabad high court.

Now coming to the points about why this case has not gained
any significant attention at the national lavel.

1) This judgement by Allahabad High Court has got nothing
to do with the really hot MANDAL issue currently under consider-
ation of the supreme court.

2) Allocating a SC&ST seat to an OBC candidate is not so
contentious as if the fight were to be between a SC&ST or
OBC candidate and an upper cast candidate. Because in that
case the battle lines are very well defined and politicians
of oppertune will immediately take a position on the issue.

3) The district school administration may not even appeal
in the supreme court against the decision because many poli-
ticians now favor inter convertibility between seats reser-
ved for SC&ST and OBC candidates.


Inspite of these points the case is worth while to note. Be-
cause this is the first time a high court judge has commented
that nation's performance and need in a certain area, such as
science in this case, are above petty cast consideration. But
the critics will immediately point out that if this were the
case then why stop at science. What about defence, medicine,
any technological field or high level administeration ? Are
these not important ? The judge's decision may be reflecting
his bias against reservations as such and by wording the jud-
gement to make science as an issue the judge may want to open
a flood gate of court cases against cast based reservations.

The main argument for reservations has nothing to do with
relative performances of the upper and lower cast candid-
ates. But whether to attatch an economic criteria in select-
ing suitable lower and upper cast candidates. And in my views
the jury is still out there in the supreme court.


regards..                   Deepak