The Supreme Court (SC) has quashed a January 2000 order of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh.
[The order provided 100% reservation to Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates for the post of teachers in schools in the scheduled areas.]
What was the State's rationale?
There was chronic absenteeism among teachers who did not belong to those remote scheduled areas where the schools were located.
The State government's original orders of 1986, and the subsequent order in 2000, were an attempt to address this.
The Governor of then undivided Andhra Pradesh had cited Schedule V of the Constitution to pass the order.
It provides for administration of Scheduled Areas in states other than Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
What are the SC's arguments now?
Equality - The scheme was not against affirmative programmes as such, but the implementation manner was detrimental to the rest of society.
Andhra Pradesh has a local area system of recruitment to public services.
The President, under Article 371D, has issued orders that a resident of a district/zone cannot apply to another district/zone for appointment.
The 100% reservation thus adversely affected the interests of other candidates.
These include not only Scheduled Castes and other backward communities but also other ST communities not native to those areas.
The court thus concluded that the reservation violated Articles 14 (equality before law), 15(1) (discrimination against citizens) and 16 (equal opportunity) of the Constitution.
SC ruling stresses that overzealous reservation tends to affect rights of other communities.
Schedule V - The court held that creation of 100% reservation through the government order was akin to making a new law.
But the Schedule V only allows the Governor to not apply or apply a law to a scheduled area with modifications.
It does not allow the Governor to make a new law altogether.
Suggestions - The court noted the move of drafting only members of the local tribes was not a viable solution to teachers' absenteeism.
It noted that the government could have come up with other incentives to ensure the attendance of teachers.
The court however agreed to not quash the appointments to the posts made since 1986.
This was done on the condition that the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana would not attempt to bring in a similar quota in the future.
What are the larger concerns in this regard?
Reservation ceiling - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had observed that any reservation normally ought to be for a “minority of seats”.
This is one of the points often urged in favour of the 50% cap imposed by the Court on total reservation (although with exceptions in special circumstances).
If at all the cap be breached, a special case must be made for it.
However, it must also be noted that there is a continuing need for a significant quota for STs, especially those living in Fifth Schedule areas.
Revision of list - In this backdrop, courts tend to emphasise on revision of the list of SCs and STs.
The power to amend the lists notified by the President is not in dispute.
However, it is not totally acceptable to say that the advanced and “affluent” sections within SCs and STs are cornering all benefits.
The SCs and STs thus need due representation for their rightful empowerment.
