पेट है ख़ाली लोगों का

पेट है ख़ाली लोगों का, भगवान की बातें करता

बेघर इंसाँ से तू रौशनदान की बातें करता है // १ 

रूखी रूखी खाल है जिनकी, आँख धँसी है गड्ढों में

उनसे जाकर तू किनके सम्मान की बातें करता है // २

मुश्किल है दो जून की रोटी का भी मिलना लोगों को

ऐसे में इक पागल ही अरमान की बातें करता है // ३

तुझको ऊपरवाले ने क्या क्या ना बख़्शा लेकिन तू

मदद ज़रा सी कर के भी अहसान की बातें करता है //४

लहरों से लड़ने वाले को ख़ौफ़ नहीं है कुछ भी, पर

साहिल पे महफ़ूज़ है जो तूफ़ान की बातें करता है // ५

लोग बँटे हैं फ़िरक़ों में यूँ भूल के क़ौमी मिल्लत को

कोई पठानों की कोई चौहान की बातें करता है // ६

राज़ रखे रिश्ता क्या ऐसे पागल बनिये से कोई

नींद में भी जो बीवी से दूकान की बातें करता है // ७

राज़ नवादवी ®

Punjab Dalit topper’s real struggle will be at DU. Village roots vs Netflix culture

Ever wonder what happens to the Dalit toppers from the remotest villages of India? Do they pursue higher education, or do they become manual scavengers, or do they end up working as labourers in the fields of ‘upper caste’ landowners? As India celebrates its 74th Independence Day and our leaders use the occasion to make tall promises, these are questions worth asking.

If these questions bother you, then you must track the journey of 17-year-old Jaspreet Kaur from Punjab’s Mansa district. A Dalit with zero resources at her disposal, Jaspreet has topped this year’s Punjab School Education Board’s Class XII exams, securing 99.5 per cent in humanities.

After 20 days of hitting the headlines, the collective efforts of an organisation, a professor, a lawyer and a few others, have helped her see new opportunities. Yes, it takes a bunch of people to tell a Dalit girl about her own potential and what she could do with it in a world dominated by the ‘upper’ castes/class. But with almost no social or cultural capital and financial stability, her real struggle starts now. Punjab’s Dalit topper’s biggest aspiration was to become a primary school teacher.

Internet is her hope

When 29-year-old Ravi Verma, a practicing lawyer in Delhi High court, saw a news clip doing rounds on social media, he was moved. A Dalit topper only wants to become a primary teacher? Why not an IAS? Why not a judge or a journalist? These questions left Verma uncomfortable.

After trying to trace her for five days, Verma was able to connect with the reporter who had published Jaspreet’s story. Verma told him that he wanted to help Jaspreet enroll in Delhi University.

“When I told the reporter that Jaspreet could get admission in Delhi University’s prestigious institutions such as Miranda House or LSR, he was shocked. His own daughter is studying at Kirori Mal College, but he frowned upon the idea of a Dalit girl getting admission in DU,” says Verma.

After Jaspreet’s success story flashed in the media, New York-based literary organisation Raag came forward with a scholarship of Rs1 lakh. A central government employee, after seeing the news, helped Jaspreet apply for the post-matric scholarship scheme meant for scheduled castes. Later, Union minister Harsimrat Kaur Badal assured Jaspreet of help while congratulating her on a video call, which led to a Delhi University professor coming forward and offering counselling to the Dalit teenager.

“All this is unimaginable for me. I never knew the power of the internet,” says Jaspreet.

People from the neighbourhood also came forward to help her in their own little ways, offering monetary support in the form of small cash sums of Rs 1,100 and Rs 2,100. Jaspreet now has Rs 1.5 lakh in her account.

Anxieties, taunts and aspirations

Jaspreet had never heard of Miranda House in Delhi University. “I have never even been to Chandigarh,” the 17-year-old says jokingly.

Aware of her social standing and the rare feat she has achieved, an anxious Jaspreet says: “Some people in our village have started taunting us, saying that I must have got these marks by luck. This angers me a lot. They are doubting my capabilities. What if an upper caste girl/boy secured these marks? Would they have the same things to say about her/him?”

“If just a few people from my own society can shatter my confidence, I am not sure how rich people in Delhi will see my journey. I have seen in films, they indulge in ragging poor girls.”

But Jaspreet has the support of her Hindi Teacher, Gurdas Singh. Singh rubbishes the claims that she got these marks through sheer luck. “Not everyone can accept the fact that a poor Dalit girl has excelled in studies. I have taught her since Class I. She is the brightest among all,” says Singh.

Breaking the intellectual monopoly

Even if Jaspreet gets into Miranda House or Lady Shri Ram, she is likely to feel left out. Every time her college mates will mention cinema, Netflix, fashion, literature, and popular culture, Jaspreet will probably get rattled because the teenager from a small village in Punjab lacks the ‘cultural capital’ of the upper-class students. The English-speaking elite might look like aliens to her. That’s the burden of opportunity cost the likes of Jaspreet have to live with when they leave their small villages and venture into big cities in a bid to make a mark for themselves. Sadly, not many are able to make it through.

Till now, Jaspreet has experienced a certain kind of discrimination and made peace with it. While her father runs a barbershop, she and her mother work in the fields.

But now, things would be different. While on one hand, a world of opportunities wait for her in India’s capital, on the other, she will also be exposed to urban social discrimination. Because she has challenged the intellectual monopoly of the upper classes through her merit, she would be rejected at every step. Her success would be scrutinised. The first rejection has already come from her own village.

This is why Bahujans must form cultural and social groups to work as support systems for the Jaspreet Kaurs of the world. The likes of Jaspreet lack the cultural capital only because they did not have the means and not because of their inability. Now, in the times of a digital revolution, they can easily pick up the threads.

Jaspreet needs this support because she is the first champion of her ‘Kaur dynasty’. The first ‘rural elite’ of her family. The Republic of India has to see that she doesn’t end up being a headline.

Courtesy : The Print

The scourge of untouchability continues

 

The scourge of untouchability continues

The Ooruttambalam centenary of Panchami is the celebration of a protest for equality, which is a rare event. The Indian nation with all the ideals enshrined in the Constitution should move towards celebrating every event that made us aware of our duty towards bringing humanity towards equality. Dalits today celebrate Mahad Satyagraha as ‘Water Day’.

Raja Sekhar Vundru

Raja Sekhar Vundru
IAS officer and author of Ambedkar, Gandhi and Patel: The Making of India’s Electoral System

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/the-scourge-of-untouchability-continues-70718

When the Government Lower Primary School of Ooruttambalam in Kerala opened for new admissions on June 2, 2017, there was a great celebration and pride across every face. In attendance was the Chief Minister of the state and celebrating crowds. The school was welcoming five-year-old Dalit girl Athira Sreejith to the same school, where her great-grand-aunt Panchami was denied admission on account of untouchability more than 100 years ago, in 1914. To deny entry of Dalits, the school was burnt down by the villagers then. The greatest agitation in the history for access to education for untouchables was led by Ayyankali, a Dalit social reformer known for his unprecedented agitational and fighting skills.

Riots ensued, with Dalits retaliating under Ayyankali. The first ever agricultural workers’ strike was initiated by Dalits under Ayyankali for ensuring admission of Dalit children into schools in 1914. The agitation demanded the opening of public roads to Dalits and an increase in agricultural wages. As the agriculture season approached, Dalits refused to work. The agitation went on for one year and large tracts were left fallow. The negotiations resulted in the admission of Dalit children to schools even though government had allowed admission from 1906. The bench on which Dalit girl Panchami sat and was burnt in 1914 is still preserved in a symbolic gesture in the Ooruttambalam school of Trivandrum district in Kerala.

BR Ambedkar, who went on to head the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly, which abolished untouchability in 1950, led a similar agitation in 1927, this time for access to water, which was denied to Dalits due to the practice of untouchability. Similar to Ayyankali, he wanted to ensure access to a right that was duly legislated. Mahad town passed a resolution of access to water in the Chowdar water tank for all in 1926, but the society denied it. Ambedkar led the Mahad Satyagraha on March 20, 1927, and drank water as a symbolic gesture. Ambedkar and his followers were attacked by villagers.

Ambedkar also challenged the temple entry denial to Dalits through his temple entry agitations, to Parvati Temple, Pune (1929), Kali Temple, Khulna (1929), and Kalaram Temple, Nasik (1930). His efforts were foiled by orthodox Hindus. Eventually, he ended his challenge by declaring at Yeola on October 13, 1935, that he might have been born a Hindi, but will not die a Hindu, He took to Buddhism on October 14, 1956.

As the scourge of untouchability, a practice which, according to Ambedkar, originated in the fifth century AD, imposed upon oppressed millions was to be reformed by Mahatma Gandhi’s untouchability campaign; temple entry legislations and by Ambedkar’s agitational modes for water, education, jobs, civil rights and constitutional remedies. But certainly, Ambedkar and Gandhi have brought a parallel programme across the national movement, that abolition of untouchability is a part of the liberation of the country from British rule. The Constituent Assembly was equivocal in its abolition of untouchability under Article 17 and prescribed punishment for practising untouchability.

Indian polity, on its part, legislated and declared untouchability a crime in the Untouchability Offences Act, 1955, changed to the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976. The powerful part is that the onus of proof of practice of untouchability crime lies with the accused and not the victim. As modern forms of untouchability evolved to atrocious proportions, polity enacted The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and further transformed it into a strict legislation in 2016. This Act enacted punishment for government officials neglecting their duties under the Act. Yet, the social transformation as we turned to 21st century left much to be desired.

As the societal oppression on Dalits on social, educational, economic and brutal exploitation and bonded slavery continued, the euphoria of the abolition of untouchability waned by the seventies. Assertive Dalit movements against the systemic oppression arose, based on the Ambedkarite ideology, such as the Bhim Sena Movement in Hyderabad and Karnataka; Dalit Panthers in Maharashtra and Gujarat; Ayyankali Pada in Kerala; Vidulai Chiruthaigal in Tamil Nadu and now Bhim Army in Uttar Pradesh.

The first of the reports that flagged the conditions of untouchability-related oppression and crime was brought out in 1998 in an internationally published document, Broken People: Caste Violence Against India’s ‘Untouchables’ by Smita Narula. A sensational study in 2006 revealed the dark underbelly of the practice of untouchability in rural India in Untouchability in Rural India (Ghanshyam Shah et al). These two reports dealt in detail patterns of abuse in rural areas; discrimination and exploitative labour; criminalisation of Dalit activists who fight for rights; attacks on Dalit women and forced unclean occupations.

In the 21st century, the Amit Thorat and Omkar Joshi study, The Continuing Practice of Untouchability in India: Patterns and Mitigating Influences, in 2015 revealed that 27 per cent of India still practises untouchability, with 30 per cent household in rural and 20 per cent in urban areas accepting the practice. The 33 per cent of poorer Indians by income practice untouchability while 23 per cent of the rich do. The report mentioned that 40-49 per cent of households in the Hindi belt in North India accepted the practice, while Southern India accounted for 17 per cent. While literates showed 30 per cent practice, higher education did not bring it down much (24 per cent).

The journey of India’s struggle against untouchability seems to be long-drawn. Ambedkarite remedies against discrimination on the basis of untouchability against the persons belonging to untouchable castes, now called Dalits, were: reservations in education, jobs and legislatures. The communities practising untouchability seek the abolition of remedies enunciated by Ambedkar rather than uprooting the scourge or its related and modern forms of discrimination and atrocities.

The Ooruttambalam centenary of Panchami is the celebration of a protest for equality, which is a rare event. The nation with all ideals enshrined in the Constitution should move towards celebrating every event that made us aware of our duty towards bringing humanity towards equality. Dalits today celebrate Mahad Satyagraha as ‘Water Day’ as it reminded everyone that water can no more be a part of inequality.

The forms and methods of modern-day untouchability need to be questioned and constitutional remedies enunciated need to be implemented with vigour rather than questioning the remedies designed to fight untouchability. The continuation of this practice in the 21st century will hamper the constitutional mandate of equality for all, and needs to be demolished once and for all, for which efforts in the Ambedkarite mode will continue.

ऐस.सी. ऐस. टी. अट्रोसिटी एक्ट और दलित उत्पीड़न

दलित संगठनों द्वारा 2 अप्रैल को बुलाए गए भारत बंद के  दौरान और बाद में बीजेपी शासित राज्यों में दलितों के ऊपर हुए पुलिस और दबंग लोगों के अत्याचारों के सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हो रहे वीडियोस से स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि सचमुच में ही इस देश में दलितों के अधिकारों की रक्षा के लिए ऐस.सी. ऐस. टी. अट्रोसिटी एक्ट जैसे कानून की आवश्यकता है।

वायरल वीडियोस में दबंगों और पुलिस को ना केवल दो-दो, चार-चार दलित लड़को  के ग्रुपस को बेरहमी से पीटते हुए बल्कि उनके साथ साथ डॉ. भीमराव अंबेडकर को भद्दी भद्दी जातिसूचक गालियां देते सुना जा सकता है। लज्जाजनक वीडियोस में दबंगों और पुलिस को स्वयं तोड़फोड़ करते हुए भी दिखाया गया है। और यह सब केवल उन्हीं राज्यों में हुआ  जहां पर बीजेपी की सत्ता है। उन राज्यों में जहां पर अन्य दलों की सरकारें हैं वहां से ऐसी किसी घटना का विवरण नहीं है । ज़ुल्म इस हद तक हुए और हो रहे हैं कि मजबूर हो कर कभी न बोलने वाले बीजेपी के दलित सांसदों को लिखित शिकायत द्वारा प्रधान मंत्री को सीधे हस्तक्षेप का आह्वान करना पड़ गया। 

आखिर इसका कारण क्या है। और यह जातिगत घृणा केवल हिंदूवादी विचारधारा से प्रभावित राज्यों में ही क्यों।  बहुत से लोगों का उत्तर होगा कि यह घृणा आरक्षण के कारण है। किंतु आरक्षण का प्रभाव तो पूरे देश में है। फिर भारतबंद का असर पंजाब जैसे राज्यों में संपूर्ण और शांतिपूर्ण  कैसे रहा। वास्तविकता तो यह है कि दबंग लोग अपनी सदियों पुरानी रूढ़िवादी मानसिकता से नहीं बाहर आ पा रहे। आज भी वह  निरक्षरता और अर्ध-साक्षरता के कारण पंडों और पोंगापंथियों के गुलाम हैं। आरक्षण तो पिछले कुछ दशकों से ही शुरु हुआ है। यह घृणा तो सदियों पुरानी है। पंडों के प्रभाव में सदियों से 'ढोल गवार शुद्र पशु नारी, यह सब ताड़न के अधिकारी' जैसे श्लोकों को रटते आये लोग इस घृणा को नहीं पालेंगे तो क्या करेंगे।  पंजाब जैसे राज्य में जहाँ पंडों का प्रभुत्व पहले से ही ख़त्म है वहां ऐसी घृणा देखना मुश्किल है।   पंडों और पोंगापंथियों के प्रभाव में यह घृणा तब तक चलती रहेगी जब तक अगड़ा हिन्दू समाज संपूर्ण साक्षरता एवं विकास के लक्ष्य को हासिल नहीं कर लेता। 

पिछले 70 सालों में देश की सरकारों ने जनता की शिक्षा को, खास तौर पर अगड़े समाज की संपूर्ण शिक्षा को, प्राथमिकता ना दिए जाने के कारण समाज आज तक रूढ़ियों में फंसा है और व्यक्तियों को जाति के आधार पर प्रताड़ित किया जा रहा है। अभी कल ही प्रधानमंत्री ने अपनी पार्टी के सभी सांसदों को अपने अपने क्षेत्र में जाकर दलितों के साथ कुछ दिन बिताने का सुझाव दिया है।  यह सुझाव वोट हित में तो कारगर हो सकता है किंतु देश हित में तभी कारगर होगा जब यह सब सांसद अपने अपने क्षेत्र में प्रभु वर्ग के लोगों के साथ बैठकर उन्हें कुछ सलाह दें जिससे कि वे रूढ़ियों से बाहर आ सकें। गरीब और प्रताड़ित लोगों को परामर्श देने से पहले अगड़े वर्ग के लोगों को शिक्षा और परामर्श की नितांत आवश्यकता है ।

लेकिन ऐसे हालात में जब देश के IIT जैसे संस्थानों में विद्यार्थीओं को वेदअध्ययन की प्रेरणा दी जा रही हो, भूवैज्ञानिकों को सरस्वती नदी की खोज में और पुरातत्वविदों को रामायण युग साक्ष्य खोजने में लगाया जा रहा हो, ऐसा  कुछ भी होना संभव प्रतीत नहीं होता। जबकि हम सबको पता है कि वेदों के युग में कामगार लोगों को कुछ भी पढ़ने या सुनने की आज्ञा नहीं थी मगर फिर भी उन लोगों की उपलब्धियां विश्व प्रसिद्ध थी। अभी आज के ही हिंदुस्तान टाइम्स अखबार में प्रकाशित एक समाचार के अनुसार एक  अध्ययन में पाया गया है कि इंजीनियरिंग के क्षेत्र में सीखने की क्षमता  SC/ST विद्यार्थियों में औरों के मुकाबले अधिक होती है।

अंत में यही कहेंगे कि यदि दलित भारत बंद के आवाहन के लिए जिम्मेदार हैं तो हिंसा का तांडव करने में रूढ़िवादी सोच का योगदान भी कम नहीं है।  जिस पर  समय रहते काबू ना पाया गया तो  देश कट्टरता का शिकार हो कर मध्य-पूर्व राष्ट्रों की राह पर चला जाएगा।

दलित और आरक्षण

भाजपा द्वारा राष्ट्रपति पद के लिए श्री राम नाथ कोविंद का नाम घोषित करते ही, पूरे देश के राजनितिक हलकों, मीडिया और सोशल मीडिया में दो शब्द 'दलित' और 'आरक्षण' बड़ी तेज़ी से ट्रेंड करने लगे।  मानो श्री कोविंद की और कोई क्वालिफिकेशन ही नहीं और दुनिया में दलित ही एक ऐसी प्रजाति है जो केवल आरक्षण से अपना गुज़ारा चलाती है। हैरानी होती है हमारे इस तथाकथित बुद्धिजीवी मीडिया पर।  अरे भाई जब कोई भी भारत का नागरिक देश का राष्ट्रपति बन सकता है तो फिर पद की गरिमा का ख्याल रखते हुए भावी राष्ट्रपति को क्यों ज़बरदस्ती जाति का ताज पहना रहे हो। या फिर यह समझा जाये कि आप अपनी सदियों पुरानी जातिगत भड़ास निकाल रहे हो।  इतना ही नहीं इसी बहाने बहुत सारे लोग आरक्षण पर भी अपनी खूब जम कर भड़ास निकाल रहे हैं।  कोई कहता है कि आरक्षण और दलित वोट बैंक की राजनीती से समाज में जातिवाद बढ़ेगा।   बहुत से लोग यह भी मानते हैं कि  इस देश की सभी समस्याओं की जड़ ही आरक्षण है। अधिकाँश जनसँख्या के अनपढ़ रहने की वजह दलित आरक्षण,  गाँवों और किसानो की बदहाली की वजह दलित आरक्षण, महिलाओं की दुर्दशा की वजह दलित आरक्षण, बिगड़ती कानून व्यवस्था की वजह भी दलित आरक्षण ही है।

क्या आरक्षण के कारण दलितों की सरकार में भागीदारी इतनी बढ़ गई है कि लोक सेवा का अधिकांश कामकाज उन्हीं से होता है। भारत सरकार के कार्मिक मंत्रालय की वार्षिक रिपोर्टस में प्रकाशित आंकड़ों से स्पष्ट होता है कि क्लास-1 सेवाओं में दलितों की भागीदारी 12 से 14% ही रही है जोकि सरकार द्वारा निर्धारित आरक्षण सीमा 15% से कहीं कम है । ऐसी ही स्थिति आदिवासियों के आरक्षण की भी है। उनकी भागीदारी भी निर्धारित आरक्षण सीमा यानी 7.5 प्रतिशत से कहीं कम यानी 4 से 5 प्रतिशत रही है। ऐसे में यदि आरक्षण का प्रावधान हटा दिया जाए तो सरकारी नियुक्तियों में इन वर्गों की भागीदारी शून्य ही हो जाएगी।

अब जो लोग यह कहते हैं कि आरक्षण की वजह से देश में समस्याएं उत्पन्न हो रही हैं उनसे पूछा जाए कि क्या यह समस्याएं दलित और आदिवासियों की देन है या फिर सरकार और सरकारी सेवाओं में जिनका प्रभुत्व है उनकी वजह से। सरकारी बैंकों के एनपीए इतना बढ़ गए हैं तो क्या इसके लिए दलित जिम्मेदार है। दलितों आदिवासियों को तो स्केल 4 से ऊपर विरले ही जाने दिया जाता। आज देश के किसान बेहाल है उनको अच्छी शिक्षा व्यवस्था नहीं है। खेती के लिए कम भूमि के कारण वह यह नहीं समझ पाते कि वहां क्या उगाएं और क्या करें।  देखने में आता है कि जिस किसान के पास मात्र 1 एकड़ जमीन भी नहीं है उसको क्रॉप लोन दे दिया जाता है। फसल के फेल हो जाने पर वह लोन की वापसी नहीं कर पाते । क्या बैंक के अधिकारी का दायित्व नहीं है कि सम्बन्धी एजेंसी के माध्यम से छोटे किसानों को उपयुक्त काम के लिए ही लोन देकर हैंड होल्डिंग की कराई जाये जिसमें कि वो सफल हो सकें और उनकी आमदनी बढ़ सके। खेती के अलावा खेती आधारित अनेकों ऐसे धंधे हैं जहां सूक्ष्म किसानों को प्रवृत किया जा सकता है।  किसानों के लिए उनके उत्पाद को सुरक्षित रखने के लिए कोई भंडारण व्यवस्था नहीं है। मजबूरन उन्हें औने-पौने दाम में अपनी फसल को बेचना पड़ता है जिसका फायदा देश के सेठ साहूकार उठाते हैं। क्या यह समस्याएं दलित और आदिवासियों के आरक्षण की वजह से हैं।

सोशल मीडिया पर दलितों और आरक्षण को कोसने वालों से प्रार्थना करूंगा यदि में वह सच्चे देशभक्त हैं तो देश की इन समस्याओं के निराकरण में अपना योगदान दे। आरक्षण व्यवस्था केवल भारत में ही नहीं बल्कि विश्व के बहुत सारे देशों में किसी ना किसी रूप में लागू है। साल 1969 में संयुक्त राष्ट्र के तत्वाधान में आयोजित “कन्वेंशन ऑन एलिमिनेशन ऑफ आल फॉर्म्स ऑफ़  रेशिअल डिस्क्रिमिनेशन” में  यह माना गया था कि “समानता के सिद्धांत में कभी-कभी राष्ट्रों को सकारात्मक कदम उठाने की आवश्यकता होती है ताकि नियमों को कम किया जा सके या नियमों से उन शर्तों को समाप्त किया जा सके जो निषिद्ध भेदभाव को बनाए रखने में मदद करती हैं।”  इंटरनेट पर उपलब्ध जानकारी के अनुसार, कन्वेंशन के इसी प्रस्ताव के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित देशों में भेदभाव खत्म करने के लिए सकारात्मक कार्रवाई के कदम उठाए गए हैं:

• यूनाइटेड किंगडम में समानता अधिनियम 2010 है I
• संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में सकारात्मक कार्रवाई हैI
• कनाडा में रोजगार इक्विटी (कनाडा) है जो कि आदिवासी और अल्पसंख्यकों को प्रभावित करती हैI
• चीन में जातीय अल्पसंख्यक और महिलाएं के लिए कोटा है I
• फिनलैंड में स्वीडिश स्पीकर के लिए कोटा है I
• जर्मनी में उनके जिमनैजियम प्रणाली में कोटा है I
• इसराइल सकारात्मक कार्रवाई है I
• जापान में बुराकुमिन को मदद करने की नीतियां हैं, जिन्हें जापान के बहिष्कार समूह माना जाता है।
• मैसेडोनिया अल्बेनियाई लोगों के लिए कोटा है I
• मलेशिया में मलेशियाई नई आर्थिक नीति है I
• न्यूज़ीलैंड में मॉरीस और पॉलिनेशियन के लिए सकारात्मक कार्रवाई है I
• नॉर्वे को पीसीएल के बोर्डों के 40% महिलाओं की आवश्यकता है।
• रोमा के लिए रोमा में कोटा है ।
• दक्षिण अफ्रीका में रोजगार इक्विटी है।दक्षिण कोरिया ने चीनी और उत्तरी कोरिया के लिए सकारात्मक कार्रवाई की है।
• 
  
• श्रीलंका में ईसाई और तमिलों के लिए नियम हैं।
• स्वीडन में सामान्य सकारात्मक कार्रवाई है।
• ब्राज़ील में वेस्टिबुलर है।

इसमें दिलचस्प केस दक्षिण अफ्रीका का है जिसने रंगभेद की नीति से सन 1994 में मुक्ति हासिल की थी। इससे पहले वहां में काले लोगों को भेड़ बकरियों की तरह बाड़ों में रखा जाता था और वो बिना इजाजत अपनी बाउंड्री भी पार नहीं कर सकते थे।  आजादी के तुरंत बाद वहां की सरकार की नीति के अनुसार यह भेड़ बकरियों की तरह रहने वाले लोग सरकार के सभी प्रकार के कामों में जुट गए और उनका  देश भारत से भी अधिक तेज गति से बढ़ा। इधर हमारे देश में आजादी के 70 साल बाद भी दलितों की काबिलियत पर सवालिया चिन्ह लगा रहता है। इसे क्या कहा जाए, एक मानसिक दिवालियापन या फिर एक धार्मिक बीमारी जो कि एक विशेष प्रकार की विचारधारा से पैदा होती है।

जो लोग आरक्षण का विरोध करते हैं उनसे मुझे संपूर्ण सहानुभूति है। मैं उनका ध्यान हमारे प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेंद्र मोदी जी के उन वक्तव्यों की ओर आकृष्ट करना चाहूंगा जिसमें उन्होंने कहा था कि “रिजर्वेशन का महत्व तब तक है जब तक अवसरों का आभाव है। जब अवसरों का आभाव खत्म हो जाएगा, रिजर्वेशन पर लड़ाई भी खत्म हो जाएगी।”  तो क्यों नहीं हम सब लोग इस बात की मांग रखें देश में अवसरों का अभाव खत्म हो। अधिक से अधिक स्कूल कॉलेज हों, अधिक से अधिक पढ़ने के अवसर हों, अधिक से अधिक बिजनेस धंधे हों, नौकरियां हों, कामकाज हो जिससे कि यह खींचतान खत्म हो।    

यश पाल

नई दिल्ली, दिनांक 24.6.2017

Poor Protection of Reservation related Constitutional Provisions by Government

The Constitution of India contains well defined provisions under article 16(4A) and article 335, regarding reservation for SC/ST in the matters of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. The text of these articles is as follows:

Art.16(4A): Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

Article 335: The claims of the member 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.

Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.

But in spite of the above well defined constitutional provisions, it is observed that the Government has been very slow in implementing the rulings of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in favour of reservation policy. On the other hand the Government, under pressure from various anti-reservation lobbies, groups and even private parties, has been quick in implementing quite questionable anti-reservation rulings by the Courts. The following examples are testimony to such an approach by the Government Departments.

No Withdrawal of DOPT OM dated 22.07.1997, held illegal by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court: The five judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India, in its judgment and order dated 15/07/2014 in the Rohtas Bhankhar case (Civil Appeal No.6046-47 /2004) has declared the DOPT’s OM No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res), dated 22.7.1997 as illegal. However, the Government has issued no instructions to withdraw the said illegal O.M. dated 22/07/1997 and provide relief to all the SC/ST employees who were adversely affected due to this O.M. during 1996 to 1999. The Government has only modified the results of Section Officers / Stenographers (Grade B/Grade-I) Ltd Departmental Competitive Examination, 1996 in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment dated 15.7.2014 in the Rohtas Bhankhar case The SC/ST officers included in Central Secretariat Service SO Grade Select List, 1996 on the basis of the said Departmental exam, are also waiting for their consequential promotions to the next higher grades on the basis of their revised seniority.

Quick Withdrawal of DOPT O.M. dated 10.08.2010: In a Contempt Petition (C) no. 314/2016 filed by Samta Andolan Samiti, an anti-reservation private party, the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) have issued an Office Memorandum no.36012/11/2016-Estt(Res.), dated 30.09.2016, whereby the instructions contained in their earlier O.M. dated 10.08.2010, issued in compliance with the judgment of Madras High Court in WP(C) 15226/2007 (UOI Vs S. Kalugasalamoorthy) regarding consideration of SC/ST employees against general vacancies on their own merit, have been put on hold at the advice of the Solicitor General. As a result of this latest O.M. dated 30.09.3016, SC/ST employees cannot be considered for promotion against unreserved posts even if they are eligible for the same on account of his own merit and seniority, guaranteed under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.

The issue of “own merit” involved in DOPT’s O.M. dated 10/08/2010 emanates from the Post Based Reservation Rosters for SC/ST/OBC prescribed by the DOPT vide O.M. dated 2/7/1997 in compliance with the judgement of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab as well as J.C. Mallick Vs. Ministry of Railways. Subsequently, the DOPT vide O.M. dated 31.01.2005 had clarified that the concept of “own merit” did not apply to promotions made by non-selection methods. The said clarification dated 31.01.2005 was quashed by CAT, Madras Bench in OA no.900/2005 filed by S. Kalugasalamoorthy Vs. UOI. The decision of CAT, Madras Bench was upheld by Madras High Court in WP(C) 15226/2007 [UOI Vs S. Kalugasalamoorthy]. Consequently, the DOPT, vide O.M. dated 10.08.2010, had to withdraw its O.M. dated 31.01.2005 and clarify that the own merit concept will be applicable to promotions made by selection as well as non-selection posts. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, vide its judgment dated 15.07.2011 in CWP No. 13218 of 2009 [Lachhmi Narain Gupta &Ors Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors], quashed the DOPT O.M. dated 10.08.2010 by citing Supreme Court order dated 19.10.2006 in M. Nagaraj case. The Punjab and High Court also held, in same order dated 15.07.2011, that no reservation in promotion could be made in pursuance to office memorandum dated 2.7.1997.

Government / DOPT’s Failure to present the facts correctly: The above orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court came due to the failure of Government / DOPT to inform the court that the Government has examined the issues arising out of Supreme Court judgement dated 19.10.2006 in M. Nagaraj case and intimated all the State Governments / UT Administrations / Ministries and Departments of GOI / President’s Secretariat / Lok Sabha Sectt. / Rajya Sabha Secretariat / Railway Board / UPSC / CAG of India etc., vide vide letter no. 36036/2/2007- Estt.(Res), dated 29/3/2007 that the observations made in the said case are mere obiter dicta, per incuriam and do not flow from; and cannot be reconciled with the 9 judge bench judgement of Supreme Court in the matter of Indra Sawhney case. The reference to creamy layer in the concluding paragraph and other portions of the judgement does not relate to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  The Government has also failed to inform the court that other conditions laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Nagaraj case pertaining to maintenance of efficiency in administration and data on adequate representation are also complied with through the bench marks prescribed for promotions under the DPC guidelines/recruitment rules for posts and the post based reservation rosters prescribed for each post as per the directions of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal case. However, despite having strong legal background behind the reservation rules, the DOPT or the other respondent Departments, have deliberately lost their case in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Failure to take follow up action after High Court order dated 15.07.2011: Further, the DOPT, D/o Revenue etc. have also failed to immediately file an SLP in the Supreme Court challenging the said High Court order dated 15.07.2011 and seeking a stay thereon. The first SLP [No. 30621/011 – Jarnail Singh &Ors Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta &Ors] against the said High Court order has been filed by the adversely affected SC/ST officers. In a meeting convened by the Attorney General of India on 04.04.2016 in with Secretary (DOPT), Secretary (Revenue) and Secretary (DOLA), it was suggested that the Department of Revenue/CBDT may move an application before the Supreme Court praying for stay on the order of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Lachhmi Narain Gupta. But due to the negligence of the Govt. Officials/Department, no such application has been filed by D/o Revenue or DoPT, so far. However, contrary to the advice of Attorney General, the DoPT has issued an OM dated 30.09.2016 on the advice of the Learned Solicitor General that till such time the main matter along with the Contempt Petition is decided, no further promotions of reserved category persons to unreserved posts will be made based on the DoPT OM dated 10.08.2010, in order to preclude any interim order in contempt case. 

The OM issued by DoPT on 30.09.2016 on the advice of Solicitor General is not only illegal but also contradictory to the advice of the top Legal Authority of India i.e. Attorney General of India. With the issue of DOPT’s OM dated 30.09.2016, the process of promotion on own merit and own seniority, in terms of the O.M. dated 10.08.2010, has been stalled. Such SC/ST candidates who fulfil all the criterion prescribed and are senior to unreserved candidates, will not be promoted against unreserved points. This results in 77.5% seats being reserved for non-SC/ST candidates, which is illegal and against Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision of ceiling of 50% reservation in case of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India. 

It is surprising that in a well-developed country like USA, 50% reservation in all appointments, including appointments by promotion, is being implemented honestly on the basis of rulings by the Supreme Court of that country, without specific constitutional provisions. On the other hand, in India, the constitutional rights of SCs and STs for reservation in public employment are being denied in spite sound legal framework for implementation of these constitutional provisions and the facts are not presented correctly before the courts by the DOPT and other concerned Departments. 

Cause of Negativity towards reservation rules: While the root cause of grudge against SC/ST employees lies in the feudal and caste based structure of Indian society, it gets multiplied in the Government Departments with the delayed promotions in the lower rungs of bureaucracy / Government machinery. The Government allows only 3 assured careers progressions under MACP scheme to non-Group A employees. Such progressions, due after every ten years of service, sometimes happen in slightly higher grades but not the next higher grades to which the employees are eligible for regular promotion. The other hand, the officers in Group A services enjoy 7 to 8 avenues of regular promotion and 6 promotions under Non-functional upgradation scheme (with reference to IAS officers). For example, a person recruited as a constable in a police force gets, at the most 2-3 promotions up to the level of Asstt. Sub Inspector but another person who joins as an IPS officer is entitled for 6 non-functional upgradations and upto 7 regular appointments on promotion basis. This analogy applies to every Department of the Government.

The above kinds of discrimination between Group A and non-Group ‘A’ Government servants, in matters career progression, have continued since the British Raj era. The genesis of such discrimination lie in the fact that initially the appointments to Class I posts in the Government were made only by selection of white officers from Britain. Therefore, the best of pay, perks and promotions were reserved for such British white officers. After independence, such discrimination between two sets of Government employees should have reduced. But unfortunately, the gap of pay, perks and promotions between Group ‘A’ and non-Group A employees has always been increasing. Therefore, the ‘non – Group A’ general category officers always feel cheated and their frustration results in creating hurdles for SC/ST employees, who have always been suppressed traditionally. The higher bureaucracy also finds petty quarrels among the non-Group A officers convenient and hence does not discourage it. But ultimately such frustration leads to low productivity and corruption. 

Way Forward: In order to protect the constitutional rights of the SC/ST employees and to reduce the undue attrition between SC/ST and non-SC/ST employees,  the Government should  (i) Withdraw the DOPT’s O.M. dated 22.07.1997 declared illegal by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court and allow relief to all SC/ST employees who have been adversely affected by the said O.M. during 1996-1999, (ii)  the DOPT should withdraw its O.M. dated 30.09.2016 which is illegal as it amounts to provide 77.5% reservation to non-SC/ST candidates, in violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision of ceiling of 50% reservation in case of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India, (iii)  prior legal advice of Learned Attorney General should be obtained to defend Government’s policy in various reservation related matters under the consideration of Hon’ble Supreme Court, (iv) should appoint SC/ST officers at the middle and higher levels in Estt. (Reservation) Division so as to ensure honest presentation of facts pertaining to reservation policy.

It is also suggested that when the Government is in complete over-haul mood by doing away with all the redundant and discriminatory practices, which are in vogue since the early period of British Raj, it would be a great service to the nation by overhauling the Government’s personnel policy with the reduction of gap in availability of promotional opportunities for Group A and non- Group A officers. The MACP for the non- Group ‘A’ Government employees must have at least 5 non-functional financial upgradations i.e. one assured career progression after successful completion of 7 years’ service. The Group ‘A’ officers of other organised services, like Central Secretariat Services, should be equated with the officers of Group ‘A’ services in the matters of non-functional financial upgradation. Such a positive approach will certainly reduce the rate of attrition amongst the employees of different groups and categories and they will contribute heavily for a highly productive and corruption free India.

Get Together and Seminar on Reservation

The Central Secretariat SC/ST Employees Welfare Association (Regd.) organised a get together and the Seminar on Reservation in Promotions on 29th April, 2016 at Speaker Hall, Constitution Club,New Delhi. Shri Faggan Singh Kulaste, Chairman, Parliamentary Committee for Welfare of SCs and STs, chief guest on the occasion addressed the gathering. He exhorted all the stakeholders in the matter of reservation in promotions to sit together and suggest a lasting solution to never ending litigations on this subject, particularly after a spate of judicial pronouncements pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment in M. Nagaraj case (2006). He assured his unstinted support to the cause. Earlier, Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate in Supreme Court informed the audience that when the deveoped countries, like USA, UK, South Africa etc. have the provisions of reservation in promotions in service as well as in all types of private contracts on the basis of law laid down through judicial interventions and not on the basis of any such provisions in their respective constitutions, why it is in India that here well defined constitutional provisions for reservation are challenged in courts every now and then. He said that apart from reservation for black population, the women in USA also enjoy the benefit of reservation as a part of Government's policy for affirmative action for less privileged sections of society. Mr. Rohtas Bhankhar, President of Central Secretariat SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, advised all the employees to unite fight together for the common cause of saving the interests of the downtrodden sections of society. Mr. M.S. Kalania Deputy Secretary called upon all the educated and service class persons of Dalit Adivasi communities to join hands and pay back to their society in the form their contribution in educational and economic upliftment of poor people living in destitution. The issues of discrimination and selective implementation of rule to harm the promotional prospects of SC/ST Employees in Central Secretariat by DOPT, the nodal Department for service and reservation related matters, were also highlighted. It was pointed out to the audience that how mischievously the DOPT amended rules for promotion from the post of SSA to ASO by increasing minimum qualifying service from 8 years to 10 years without keeping the mandatory saving clause for non application of the revised rule to such employees who were eligible for promotion under the pre-revised rule at the time of said revision. In this way Department obstructed the promotion of hundreds of SC/ST Employees by deliberately keeping their earmarked posts vacant. On the other hand, the DOPT refused to revise the minimum qualifying service for promotion from Section Officer grade to Under Secretary grade from existing 8 years to 6 years as per revised guidelines because such an amendment was going to the benefit of SC/ST Section officers. Resultantly, there has been minimal representation of SC/ST officers in the Under Secretary Grade Select Lists for the years 2009, 2010, 2013 and 2014. A strong pitch was raised to stop Ad-Hoc Appointments in Central Secretariat. The provision of making ad-hoc appointments is resorted to in rare and special circumstances. In normal course all appointments are to be made on regular basis in consultation with UPSC, wherever required under the rules. But the DOPT has not only adopted the ad-hoc appointments as a regular feature in its cadre management but it has also been making blatant misuse of Ad-hoc appointments to detriment of SC/ST officers. Our officers have to retire without promotion because of this ad-hoc policy of the Government. For example, the DOPT has not been able issue a regular Select List for Deputy Secretary grade since 2011. All promotions in this grade are being made on ad-hoc basis. Delay in issuing regular select list will cause SC/ST Deputy Secretaries to retire with promotion in Director grade. Secondly, even while making ad-hoc appointments, no attention is paid to the DOPT OM no. 36012/27/2000-Estt.(Res.), dated 15/3/2002. As per this O.M. the vacancies identified as falling under SC/ST share and are proposed to be filled up ad-hoc basis, should be filled up in the same manner as in the case of filling up on regular basis. The backlog of SC/ST vacancies is to be treated as a group distinct from the current vacancies in terms of DOPT OM no. 36012/5/97-Estt.(RR) Vol.II, dated 20/7/2000. Therefore, it was appealed to the DOPT to stop making ad-hoc promotion as a rule. They should ensure timely release the regular Select Lists for all grades as per promotion guidelines. The speakers also raised the issue of complete implementation of Supreme Court Order in Rohtas Bhankhar case and Review of Results of SO Gr./ Steno. Gr. B LDCE, 1997-1999. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 15.7.2014 in the Rohtas Bhankhar case (Civil Appeal No.6046-47 /2004) has declared the DOPT’s OM No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res),  dated  22.7.1997 as illegal and quashed. However, the Government still considers the said O.M. dated 22.7.1997 as legal for all SC/ST employees except those who appeared in Section Officers /Stenographers (Grade B / Grade-I) LDCE, 1996. Such a view of the DOPT is gross violation of the “Law of Land” declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohtas Bhankhar case.   The Government still considers the illegal O.M. dated 22.7.1997 as legal for all SC/ST employees except those who appeared in Section Officers /Stenographers (Grade B / Grade-I) LDCE, 1996. Such a view of the DOPT is gross violation of the “Law of Land” declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohtas Bhankhar case.   As a matter of fact, with the quashing of DOPT’s O.M. dated 22.7.1997 by the Supreme Court in Rohtas Bhankhar case, all the Limited Departmental Competitive Exams held between 1996 and 2000 should be reviewed by allowing concessions in respect of SC/ST category employees that were withdrawn under the said illegal O.M. The Department should also take action simultaneously for inclusion of fresh candidates against vacancies being created with the shifting of SC/ST candidates to new Select Lists of 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 after implementation of Supreme Court judgement. For example, the DOPT is yet to take any action to fill up the vacancies caused by movement 41 Section Officers from SO grade select lists 2000 - 2003 to the SO grade select list1996. The Government has implemented the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 15.7.2014 in the Rohtas Bhankhar only in respect of Section Officers/  Stenographers (Grade B / Grade-I) Ltd. Departmental Competitive Examination, 1996.The officers included in SO Select List, 1996 are still waiting for their empanelment in the revised Select Lists for US grade on the basis of their revised seniority. —

Government to Reopen M. Nagaraj case on Reservation in Promotions - Requests to follow rules unheard

Dr. Jitendra Singh, Hon’ble Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions in reply to an unstarred question no. 1377 regarding reservation in promotion in the Rajya Sabha on 10^th December, 2015, inter-alia, has stated the following:

“ ....The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 19.10.2006, in the matter of M. Nagaraj & Ors. V/s Union of India, while upholding the validity of the Constitutional Amendments made in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, inter-alia, observed that the State will have to collect quantifiable data of backwardness, inadequacy of representation before providing reservation in promotion.

In order to provide impediment free reservation in promotion to SCs and STs, the Constitutional (One Hundred and Seventeenth Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the Government in September, 2012. The Bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 17.12.2012 and transmitted to the Lok Sabha for consideration and passing. The Bill could not be considered in the 15th Lok Sabha and lapsed on the dissolution of 15th Lok Sabha. The issues emanating from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 19.10.2006 in M.Nagaraj case is under examination.”

Much before the Minister gave the above reply in Parliament, the Under Secretary, CS.I Division, DOPT vide letter no.5/10/2012-CS.I (U), dated 18^th November, 2015 issued in reply to the representations given by General Category CSS officers, has stated that implementation of the Supreme Court judgement dated 19.10.2006 in the Writ Petition (C) 61 of 2002 titled M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors is under consideration.  On the basis of same letter dated 18/11/2015, Hon’ble CAT, Principal bench, New Delhi vide it's order dated 30/11/2015 in OA no. 4151 of 2015 filed by Suri Shambhu Nath Jasra and others Vs UOI & Anr., has given directions to DOPT to take a decision in the matter, within 6 months.    

The same Under Secretary and CPIO, CS.I Division, DOPT has also misrepresented the facts available with the Department, while furnishing information under RTI Act to Shri Anurag Goel, the main applicant in OA no.3382 / 2015 filed in CAT, New Delhi, and furnished incorrect and incomplete information, which incidentally suits the Applicant. The queries of Shri Goel and the information thereon given by the CPIO are as follows:

Queries:

(i)  Whether any exercise was undertaken to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the SC/ST categories and inadequacy of their representation in public employment before issue of OM no. 5/11/2014-CS.I (U), dated 18.9.2014.

(ii)   If yes, copies of relevant documents showing the outcome of the exercise.

(iii) Copies of the note portion on which approval of the competent authority was obtained before issue of aforesaid O.M.

Reply by the CPIO:

(i)     No.

(ii)    Not arise.

(iii)   No note was recorded for issue of the O.M.

The sudden change in policy of the Government comes as a surprise to thousands of SC/ST employees in the Central Government particularly when the issues involved in Supreme Court judgement dated 19.10.2006 in M Nagaraj case have already been examined by DOPT in consultation with the law officers of the Government and it is already conveyed to all State Governments/UTs, all Ministries / Departments of the Government of India, Office of CAG of India, UPSC, Supreme Court of India, National Commission for SCs National Commission for BCs National Commission for STs, Railway Board,  Planning Commission, PMO, President Secretariat, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Lok Sabha Secretariat vide letter no. 36036/2/2007- Estt.(Res), dated 29/3/2007 that the observations made in Nagraj case are mere obiter dicta, per incuriam and do not flow from; and cannot be reconciled with the 9 judge bench judgement of Supreme Court in the matter of Indra Sawhney case. The reference to creamy layer in the concluding paragraph and other portions of the judgement does not relate to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The conclusions recorded by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the Writ Petition (C) 61 of 2002 titled M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors  are as follows:

    121. The impugned constitutional     amendments by which Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the sub- classification between OBCs on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand as held in  Indra Sawhney, the concept of post-based roster with inbuilt concept of replacement as held in  R.K. Sabharwal.

Data on Adequate Representation: The other direction of the Honorable Supreme Court in M Nagaraj case regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs was already complied with by the DOPT with the introduction of post-based reservation rosters vide O.M. no. 36012/2/96-Estt.(Res.), dated 02/07/1997 as prescribed by the Supreme Court in RK Sabharwal case. The DOPT has also directed all the Ministries / Departments vide O.M. No. 36035/17/2008-Estt. (Res), dated 14/11/2008 that they should publish the all the statistics pertaining to representation of SCs and STs in public employment in annual reports.

Data on Adequate Representation in CS Division: The CS Division of DOPT also maintains the reservation roster prescribed vide O.M. dated 02/07/1997 for the purpose of ensuring adequate representation of SCs and STs in Government jobs. The status of SC/ST vacancies in different grades in Central Secretariat is as follows:

Year		US Grade	SO Gr.	Asstt. Gr.	PPS	PS
2004	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2005	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2006	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2007	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2008	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2009	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2010	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2011	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2012	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2013	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies
2014	Actual Vacancies
	Unfilled Vacancies

Data on Adequate Representation in States Governments: Since the DOPT O.M. no. 36012/2/96-Estt.(Res.), dated 02/07/1997 regarding introduction of post-based reservation rosters as per directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in RK Sabharwal case, was forwarded only to Ministries/Departments of Government of India and not to State Governments. Therefore, some States could not adopt the mechanism of Reservation Rosters for ensuring adequate representation and thus faltered in ensuring compliance of one of the requirements laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M Nagaraj case.  Such cases are sub-judice in Supreme Court.  

Efficiency in Administration: While the promotion guidelines issued by dopt provide for strict benchmarks to ensure efficiency in administration, the legal issues arising out of different Court rulings may also be examined. It was observed by the Supreme Court in a majority judgment in Indira Sawhney case (1992) that reservation in promotions affects efficiency in Administration. In order to clear the legal hurdles in providing reservation to SCs and STs in the matters of promotion, the Parliament enacted the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995.  A division bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S Vinod Kumar case (1996) still ruled, without taking cognizance of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, that reservation in promotions is not permissible. Although, the Parliament had enacted Constitution (82nd Amendment) Act, 2000 to nullify the adverse effect of Supreme Court judgment in S. Vinod Kumar case, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Rohtas Bhankhar case (1998) has declared the  judgment in S. Vinod Kumar  case as NOT A GOOD LAW.  

The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 15.7.2014 in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar & Ors Vs. UOI & anr, has also examined the issues arising out of the earlier judgment dated 19.10.2006 in M. Nagaraj case.  The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rohtas Bhankhar case, are as follows:

“8.    The conclusions recorded by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj  are also relevant and they read as under:

  121. The impugned constitutional     amendments by which Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the sub- classification between OBCs on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand as held in  Indra Sawhney , the concept of post-based roster with inbuilt concept of replacement as held in  R.K. Sabharwal.

122.  We reiterate that the ceiling limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.

123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the “extent of reservation”. In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making  provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excursiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.

124. Subject to the above, we uphold the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh (Amendment) Act;1995: the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.

We do not think, it is necessary for us to deal with the width and scope of Article 16(4A) any further.”

However, the lower level bureaucracy in DOPT, is hell bent on  forcing similar kind of illegality in the matter of reservation in promotion that was committed in 1997 which not only caused unrest among the SC/ST employees and their representatives but also caused great loss of precious time of the Government and Parliament  in late nineties which could have been utilised furthering the cause of development of our poor nation.  The action of DOPT in withdrawing relaxation/concessions to SC/ST in matters of promotion vide O.M. dated 22/07/1997 has recently caused huge embarrassment to the Government when the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court declared the said O.M. as ILLEGAL.

The officials in DOPT are neither following the reservation rules framed as per constitutional provisions in true letter and spirit nor they are furnishing correct information on compliance of reservation rules in Central Secretariat.

The SC/ST employees in Central Secretariat have been requesting the Government, without any gain, to avoid complicating the reservation matters at the behest of certain vested interests and take necessary action to implement rules pertaining to reservation in promotions as well as the latest directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Rohtas Bhankhar in letter and spirit on the following issues:

Withdrawal of DOPT’s illegal O.M. dated 22.7.1997:  DOPT’s OM No. 36012/23/96 - Estt.(Res),  dated  22.7.1997 regarding withdrawal of relaxations and concessions applicable to SC/ST employees, has been declared illegal by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohtas Bhankhar case.  However, as per DOPT O.M. No.36012/23/96-Estt.(Res.) Vol. II, 03/10/2000, the said illegal O.M. has been invalidated only from   03/10/2000 and not from the date of its issue.   The DOPT are not ready to accord the respect of  the ‘Law of Land’  to the judgment dated 15.7.2014 delivered by 5 judge Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court  headed by Chief Justice of India  in Civil Appeal Nos. 6046-47 of 2004 titled as Rohtas Bhankhar Vs. Union of India & anr.,  wherein the previous judgement of Supreme Court in S. Vinod Kumar case has been regarded as ‘not a good law’ and the O.M. issued thereunder has been declared  as illegal.  The Department should withdraw  their illegal O.M. dated 22.7.1997 from the date of its issue in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment dated 15.7.2015 and allow all consequential benefits given to  SC/ST employees in Central Secretariat.  

Further, as per DOPT’s reply to a Parliament Question, there were 43 vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates for SO Gr. of CSS under the exam quota for the SO Gr. / Steno Gr. B LDCE, 1996. However, UPSC have recommended only 33 candidates out of which benefit of actual promotion has been given only to 31 candidates. The Department has not taken any action to request UPSC to recommend more candidates against these vacancies particularly when 2 of the Applicants in the Rohtas Bhankhar case have been left out. 

In fact, many more vacancies under SO Grade LDCEs for 1997, 1998 and 1999 need to be filled up after review of the results of these exams  which were prepared under the effect of DOPT’s illegal O.M. dated 22.7.1997. The Department has not taken any action to advise the UPSC to similarly modify the results of SO Gr. / Steno Gr. B Ltd. Departmental Examinations for these years.

The casual approach of the DOPT in implementation of Supreme Court judgment dated 15.7.2014 can seen from the fact that modified result of SO Gr./Steno Gr. B LDCE, 1996 has been implemented only in respect of one category.  The Department has not taken any action for implementation of recommendations of UPSC in respect of other services covered under the exam.  

Promotion of officers against all vacancies will make way for promotion of juniors as a result of cascading effect.

Recalculation of SC/ST vacancies as per revised PBRRs:  This Association has been making repeated representations for implementation of instructions issued by Estt.(Reservation) Division of DOPT in so many cases.  The reserved vacancies are required to be re-calculated by revision of Post Based Reservation Roster in terms of OM No.26012/45/2005-Estt.(Res.) dated 10.8.2010 issued by DOPT in compliance with the judgment of Central Administration Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No.900/2005 [S. Kalugasalamoorthy v/s. Union of India & Others], and the High Court of judicature at Madras in the matter of U.O.I. v/s. S. Kalugasalamoorthy WP No. 15926/2007. This has also been assured by DOP&T vide its OM No.9/9/2007/CS.I(S), dated 25.4.2011 that the PBRRs are to be revised in consultation with the Estt.(Res.), DOP&T. 

Revision of Minimum Qualification: After implementation of 6^th Central Pay Commission Report, the Department of Personnel and Training have directed all the Ministries/Departments, vide OM no. AB.14017/61/2008-Estt.(RR), dated 24^th March, 2009  to amend Service/Recruitment Rules of the services/posts under their respect control  to provide for revised minimum  qualifying service  in a particular grade  required for promotion to the next higher grade.  

However, the CS Division, DOPT, the cadre authority of CSS has chosen to implement the above directions selectively to harm the promotional avenues and career prospects of SC/ST officers.  In case the minimum qualifying service for promotion from Section Officer Grade to the Under Secretary Grade is lowered from eight (8) years to  six  (6) years instructions contained in said OM dated 24-3-2009, all the backlog vacancies reserved for SC/ST in Under Secretary Grade of CSS get filled up. 

Non-compliance of Reservation Rules in Ad-hoc promotions: In terms of DOPT OM no. 36012/27/2000-Estt.(Res.), dated 15/3/2002, the  vacancies which have been identified as falling in the share of SC/ST quota  and are proposed  to be filled up ad-hoc basis, should be filled up in the same manner as in the case of filling up on regular basis. The backlog of SC/ST vacancies is to be treated as a group distinct from the current vacancies in terms of DOPT OM no. 36012/5/97-Estt.(RR) Vol.II, dated 20/7/2000.  The DOPT is filling up all the vacancies in different grades on ad-hoc basis without taking into account the claim of SC/ST candidates in terms of DOPT  OM no. 36012/27/2000-Estt.(Res.), dated 15/3/2002.  The officers in CS Division, DOPT have always been telling that SC/ST vacancies are filled up to the extent of 15% and 7.5% of the total number of vacancies being filled up under one particular promotion order whereas there are no such instructions or rule to fill up SC/ST vacancies on ad-hoc basis in such a way.