RESERVATION
The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders (Amendment) Bill, 1996
A Bill further to amend the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 19950 etc.
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Forty-seventh Year of the Republic of India as follows:
1. This Act may be called the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders (Amendment) Act, 1996.
2. In paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, for the words "or the Buddhist", the words "the Buddhist or the Christian" shall be substituted. Statement of Objects and Reasons
Converts to the Christian religion who are of the Scheduled Caste origin are precluded from the statutory benefits and safeguards accruing to members of the Scheduled Castes. Demands have been made from time to time for extending these benefits and safeguards to the Christians of the Scheduled Caste origin by granting them recognition as the Scheduled Castes on the ground that change of religion has not altered their social and economic conditions. Upon due consideration of these demands, it is proposed to amend the relevant Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders to include the Christian converts from the Scheduled Castes as the Scheduled Castes therein. Hence this Bill.
New Delhi, The 11th March, 1996
Allahabad High Court on Regional Reservation Manvendra Shah, Member of Parliament, Petitioner v. State of U.P., Respondent.
RAVIS.DHAVAN AND A.B. SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Constitution of India, Article 15- Reservation in Schools and Colleges etc. in Kumaon and Garhwal divisions of State of Uttar Pradesh People in the region suffers from backwardness not because of class conflict as usually understood but because of geographical necessities too unanimous resolutions of both houses of legislature of U.P. treating that region as distinct from rest approving it for grant of statehood-In view of aforesaid reasons, High Court directed that area formed by said two divisions be treated differently from the rest of U.P. in the matter of reservation of seats in educational institutions Further, High Court, in keeping with law settled by decisions of apex Court, made suggestions in the matter providing reservation.
(Source: AIR 1996 Allahabad 92)
Supreme Court on Reservation in Promotion
Union of India and others etc., Appellants/Petitioners v. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc., Respondents.
S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.
Constitution of India, Article 16(4) - Reservation of posts in favor of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes- Operation of roster - It is to be given effect till number of posts reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are filled by operation of roster - Determination of number - Candidates of reserved category selected on their own merit are not to be counted as reserved category candidates.
Reservation Power of State - Nature of It can provide that candidate promoted earlier by virtue of rule of reservation on roster shall not be entitled to seniority over his senior in feeder category and that when candidate senior to him in feeder category is promoted, he will regain his seniority over reserved candidate.
It is open to the State, if it is so advised, to say that while the rule of reservation shall be applied and the roster followed in the matter of promotions to or within a particular service, class or category, the candidate promoted earlier by virtue of rule of reservation/roster shall not be entitled to seniority over his senior in the feeder category and that as and when a general candidate who was senior to him in the feeder category is promoted, SITARAM KESRI such general candidate will regain his seniority over the reserved candidate notwithstanding that he is promoted subsequent to the reserved candidate. There is no unconstitutionality involved in such provision. It is permissible for the State to so provide.
(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 448)
Government Statement On 'Creamy Layer'
The Government have taken note of the recent order of the Supreme Court striking down the definition of the Creamy Layer among the Backward Classes by Kerala.
As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney and Others Vs. Union of India (known as Mandal Case), it was laid down the States shall also evolve their own criteria to exclude socially advanced persons/sections (Creamy Layer) from Other Backward Classes. The information regarding the States is not available with the Central Government. The Government do not propose to suggest uniform national criteria for the identification of the Creamy Layer.
(Source: LSUQ No. 972 dated 7 March, 1996 by S. Shahabuddin)
