Reservation in India

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Reservation in India is the process of facilitating the person in education, scholarship, jobs, and in promotion who have category certificates. Reservation is a form of quota-based affirmative action. Reservation is governed by constitutional laws, statutory laws, and local rules and regulations. Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC), and in some states Backward Classes among Muslims under a category called BC(M), are the primary beneficiaries of the reservation policies under the Constitution – with the object of ensuring a level playing field.

History of the reservations system

Caste and community profile of people below the poverty line in India, as outlined in the Sachar Report

In August 1933, the Prime Minister of Britain, Ramsay Macdonald, introduced the Communal Award, according to which separate representation was to be provided for the Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, Dalit. The depressed classes were assigned a number of seats to be filled by election from special constituencies in which voters belonging to the depressed classes only could vote.

The Award was highly controversial and opposed by Mahatma Gandhi, who fasted in protest against it. Communal Award was supported by many among the minority communities, most notably revolutionary Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. After lengthy negotiations, Gandhi reached an agreement with Dr. Ambedkar (Initially opposed it) to have a single Hindu electorate, with Dalits having seats reserved within it. This is called the Poona Pact. Electorates for other religions like Muslim and Sikh remained separate.

Present reservation system has a long history and has been debated before and after Indian independence from the British in 1947.

Reservations in favour of Backward Classes (BCs) were introduced long before independence in a large area, comprising the Presidency areas and the Princely states south of the Vindhyas. In 1882, Hunter Commission was appointed. Jyotirao Phule made a demand of free and compulsory education for Smrti along with proportionate representation in government jobs.[1] In 1891, there was a demand for reservation of government jobs with an agitation (in the princely State of Travancore) against the recruitment of non-natives into public service overlooking qualified native people.[1] In 1901,reservations were introduced in Maharashtra (in the Princely State of Kolhapur) by Shahu Maharaj.[1] Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaj, Maharaja of Kolhapur in Maharashtra introduced reservation in favour of non-Brahmin and backward classes as early as 1902. He provided free education to everyone and opened several hostels in Kolhapur to make it easier for everyone to receive the education. He also made sure everyone got suitable employment no matter what social class they belonged. He also appealed for a class-free India and the abolition of untouchability. The notification of 1902 created 50% reservation in services for backward classes/communities in the State of Kolhapur. This is the first official instance (Government Order) providing for reservation for depressed classes in India.[2]

In 1908, reservations were introduced in favour of a number of castes and communities that had little share in the administration by the British.[1] There were many other reforms in favour of and against reservations before the Indian Independence itself.

Even after the Indian Independence there were some major changes in favour of the STs, SCs and OBCs. One of the most important occurred in 1979 when the Mandal Commission was established to assess the situation of the socially and educationally backward classes.[3] The commission did not have exact figures for a sub-caste, known as the Other Backward Class(OBC), and used the 1930[4] census data, further classifying 1,257 communities as backward, to estimate the OBC population at 52%.[4] In 1980 the commission submitted a report, and recommended changes to the existing quotas, increasing them from 22% to 49.5%.[3]As of 2006 number of castes in Backward class list went up to 2297 which is the increase of 60% from community list prepared by Mandal commission. But it wasn't until the 1990s that the recommendations of the Mandala Commission were implemented in Government Jobs by Vishwanath Pratap Singh.[5]

The concept of untouchability was not practised uniformly throughout the country; therefore the identification of oppressed classes was difficult to carry out. Allegedly, the practice of segregation and untouchability prevailed more in the northern parts of India as opposed to in Southern India. Furthermore, certain castes or communities, considered "untouchable" in one province were not in other provinces.[6]

Background of caste based reservation

A common form of caste discrimination in India was the practice of untouchability. Scheduled Castes (SCs) were the primary targets of the practice, which is outlawed by the Constitution of India.[7][8] "[9]

The primary stated objective of the Indian reservation system is to increase the opportunities for enhanced social and educational status of the underprivileged communities and thus uplift their lifestyle to have their place in the mainstream of Indian society.[10] The reservation system exists to provide opportunities for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribess to increase their political representation in the State Legislatures, the Executive Organ of the Union (Centre) and States, the labour force, schools, colleges, and other public institutions.[11]

The Constitution of India states in article 16(4): "Nothing in [article 16] or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes."[12] Article 46 of the Constitution states that "The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation."[1][13]

Today, out of 543 seats in India's parliament, 84 (15.47%) are reserved for SC/Dalits and 47 (8.66%)for ST/Tribes. Allocation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in the Lok Sabha are made on the basis of proportion of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in the State concerned to that of the total population, vide provision contained in Article 330 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the R. P. Act, 1950.

The Supreme Court of India ruled that reservations could not exceed 50% (which it judged would violate equal access guaranteed by the Constitution) and put a cap on reservations.[14]

However, there are state laws that exceed this 50% limit and these are under litigation in the Supreme Court. For example, the caste-based reservation stands at 69% and the same is applicable to about 87% of the population in the State of Tamil Nadu. In 1990, Prime Minister V. P. Singh announced that 27% of government positions would be set aside for OBCs in addition to the 22.5% already set aside for the SCs and STs.[15]

Present caste-based reservation system of Union Government

Category as per Government of India Reservation Percentage as per Government of India
Scheduled Castes (SC) 15%
Scheduled Tribes (ST) 7.5%
Other Backward Classes (OBC) 27%
Total constitutional reservation percentage 49.5%

Beneficiary groups of the reservation system

Enrolment in educational institutions and job placements are reserved based on a variety of criteria. The quota system sets aside a proportion of all possible positions for members of a specific group. Those not belonging to the designated communities can compete only for the remaining positions, while members of the designated communities can compete for either reserved or open position. For example, when 1 out of 10 clerical positions in railways are reserved for ex-servicemen, those who have served in the Army can compete both in the "General Category" as well as in the specific quota.

Seats are reserved for people under the following criteria:


In central-government funded higher education institutions, 22.5%[16] of available seats are reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) students (7.5% for STs, 15% for SCs).[16] This reservation percentage has been raised to 49.5%[16] by including an additional 27% reservation for OBCs. This ratio is followed even in Parliament and all elections where a few constituencies are earmarked for those from certain communities (which will next rotate in 2026 per the Delimitation Commission).

The exact percentages vary from state to state:

  • In Tamil Nadu, the reservation is 18%[16] for SCs and 1% for STs, based on local demographics.
  • In Northeast India, especially in Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram, reservation for ST in State Govt. jobs is 80% with only 20% unreserved. In the Central Universities of NEHU(shillong) and Rajiv Gandhi University, 60% of seats are reserved for ST students.
  • In Andhra Pradesh, 25% of educational institutes and government jobs are reserved for OBCs, 15% for SCs, 6% for STs and 4% for Muslims.[17]
  • In West Bengal, 35% of educational institute seats and[18] government jobs are reserved for SC, ST, and OBC (22% SC, 6%ST,[18] 7% for[18] OBC A &B[19])in West Bengal there is no reservation on religious basis but some economically and educationally backward Muslim castes(basis surnames pertaining to different profession e.g. cobbler, weaver etc.) have been included along with their Hindu counterparts in OBC list namely OBC A and OBC B, in both lists caste from both communities are there.[20] But in higher educational institute, till now there is no reservation for the OBC community but there is reservation in regard to admission in primary,secondary[18] and higher secondary studies.[18][19]


In 1993, a constitutional amendment in India called for a random one third of village council leader, or pradhan, positions in gram panchayat to be reserved for women.[21] The village council is responsible for the provision of village infrastructure – such as public buildings, water, and roads – and for identifying government program beneficiaries. Although all decisions in the village council are made by majority, the pradhan is the only full-time member and exercises significant control over the final council decisions.[22] Recent research on the quota system has revealed that it has changed perceptions of women’s abilities, improved women’s electoral chances, and raised aspirations and educational attainment for adolescent girls.[23]

There is a long-term plan to extend this reservation to parliament and legislative assemblies. For instance, some law schools in India have a 30% reservation for females. Progressive political opinion in India is strongly not in favour of providing preferential treatment to women to create a level playing field for all of its citizens.[citation needed]

The Women's Reservation Bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 9 March 2010 by a majority vote of 186 members in favour and 1 against. As of March 2013, the Lok Sabha has not voted on the bill. Critics say gender cannot be held as a basis for reservation alone other factors should also be considered e.g. economic, social conditions of woman candidate especially when applying reservation for educated women. There also is a growing demand for women reservation in pre-existing reservations like OBC, SC/ST, Physically handicapped etc. Some groups still demand that reservation for women should be at least 50% as they comprise 50% of the population.

In Gujarat, 33% of posts are reserved for females in all government departments and services, such as police, health, education and general administration.[24][25]


There is no reservation granted on the basis of religion in the Central educational institutions at the national level, although reservation has been extended to religious minorities in some states. The Tamil Nadu government has allotted 3.5% of seats each to Muslims and Christians, thereby altering the OBC reservation to 23% from 30% (since it excludes persons belonging to Other Backward Castes who are either Muslims or Christians).[26]

The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a law enabling 4% reservations for Muslims in 2004. This law has upheld by the Supreme Court of India in an interim order on March 25, 2010,however it constituted a Constitution bench to look in the issue.Until that decision,it is allowed.[27][28] The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices J.M. Panchal and B.S. Chauhan referred this issue to Constitution bench to examine the validity of the impugned Act since it involved important issues of Constitution.[29] The issue of whether religion-based quotas are permissible under the Constitution is now before a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. Pending a decision on its legality, the top court, however, allowed the state government to implement the quota.[30] Kerala Public Service Commission has a quota of 12% for Muslims. Religious minority (Muslim or Christian) educational institutes also have 50% reservation for Muslim or Christian religions. The Central government has listed a number of Muslim communities as backward Muslims, making them eligible for reservation.


The Government of India on 22 December 2011 announced establishment of a sub-quota of 4.5% for minorities within the existing 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes. The reasoning given was that Muslim communities that have been granted OBC status are unable to compete with Hindu OBC communities.[31] It was alleged that the decision was announced as the Election Commission announced Assembly elections in five states on 24 December 2011. The government would not have been able to announce this due to the model code of conduct. On 12 January 2012, the Election Commission stayed implementation of this decision for violation of the model code of conduct.[32] Later, Justice Sachar, head of the Sachar Committee that was commissioned to prepare a report on the latest social, economic and educational condition of the Muslim community of India, criticised the government decision, saying "Such promises will not help the backward section of minorities. It is like befooling them. These people are making tall claims just to win elections". He suggested that instead of promising to give reservations, the government should focus on basic issues of improving administration and governance.[33]

On 28 May 2012, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the sub-quota. The court said that the sub-quota has been carved out only on religious lines and not on any other intelligible basis. The court criticised the decision: "In fact, we must express our anguish at the rather casual manner in which the entire issue has been taken up by the central government."[34]

Status as a domicile

With few exceptions, all jobs under certain State governments are reserved for those who are domiciled within the jurisdiction of that government. For example, in Punjab Engineering College (Chandigarh) 85% of seats were earlier reserved for Chandigarh-domiciles—now it is 50%. There are also some seats reserved for the Jammu and Kashmir 'migrants' in every Government-aided educational institute.


Some reservations are also made for:

  • Terrorist victims from Kashmir, e.g. in Punjab
  • Single girl child (in Punjab)
  • Migrants from the state of Jammu and Kashmir
  • Sons/daughters/grandsons/granddaughters of Freedom Fighters
  • Physically handicapped
  • Sports personalities
  • Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) have a small percentage of reserved seats in educational institutions. (Note : NRI reservations were removed from IIT in 2003)
  • Candidates sponsored by various organisations
  • Those who have served in the armed forces ('ex-serviceman' quota—because the age of superannuation in the Military Service is much shorter than that in the Civil posts; more so, certain intakes are tenure-based, e.g. the contract for Short-Service Commission is merely 8 years)
  • Dependents of armed forces personnel killed-in-action
  • Repatriates
  • Reservation in special schools of Government Undertakings/ PSUs, for the children of their own employees (e.g. Army schools, PSU schools, etc.)
  • Paid pathway reservations in places of worship (e.g., Tirumala Venkateswara Temple, Tiruthani Murugan temple)
  • Seat reservation for Senior citizens and Physically handicapped in public (bus) transport.


Government funding allowing reservations in colleges/universities

A University Grants Commission (UGC) provides financial assistance to universities for the establishment of Special Cells for SC/STs. The cells help universities implement the reservation policy in student admission and staff recruitment processes for teaching and non-teaching jobs. They also help the SC/ST categories integrate with the university community and help remove the difficulties SC/ST individuals may have experienced. SC/ST cells have been set up in 109 universities. The UGC provides financial assistance to universities and affiliated colleges for implementation of Special Cells. It provides the universities with assistance worth 100,000 per annum # Travelling Allowances & Dearness Allowances for field work

  1. Data Collection
  2. Analysis and evaluation of statistical data
  3. New Computer and Printer (once in a plan period)

The UGC provided financial assistance only up to the end of the Xth Plan period ending 31 March 2007. The work undertaken by the SC/ST Cells was reviewed at the end of Xth plan. The Xth plan is proposed to ensure that there is an effective implementation of the reservation policy in admissions, recruitment, allotment of staff quarters, hostels, etc. Essentially, its goal was to ensure that the SC/ST Cells were established in the universities.[11]

New rules implementation of UPA Government do not provides Scholarship scheme and reservation quota of students and Employees of colleges under central University and State University approved by University Grants Commission (UGCs).

Education scholarships in India

In India most of the scholarships or student aid is available only for OBC's,SC,ST,BC, Women, Minorities & Muslims. Around only 0.7% of scholarships or student aid in India is based on merit.[35]

Reservation in promotion


The Supreme Court of India, in its 16 November 1992 judgment in the Indra Sawhney case,[36] ruled that reservations in promotions are unconstitutional, but allowed its continuation for 5 years as a special case.[37] In 1995, 77th amendment to the Constitution was made to insert clause (4A) to Article 16 before the five-year period expired to continue with reservations for SC/STs in promotions.[38] Clause (4A) was further modified through the 85th amendment to give the benefit of consequential seniority to SC/ST candidates promoted by reservation.[39]

The 81st amendment was made to the Constitution that inserted clause (4B) in Article 16 to permit the government to treat the backlog of reserved vacancies as a separate and distinct group, to which the limit of 50 percent ceiling on reservation may not apply.[40] The 82nd amendment inserted a provison in Article 335 to enable states to give concessions to SC/ST candidates in promotion.[41]

The validity of all the above four amendments i.e. 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th was challenged in the Supreme Court through various petitions clubbed together in M Nagaraj & Others vs. Union of India & Others, mainly on the ground that these altered the Basic Structure of the Constitution.[42]

On 19 October 2006, the Supreme Court upheld these four amendments but stipulated that the concerned state will have to show, in each case, the existence of compelling reasons which include backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency, before making provisions for reservation. The court further held that these provisions are merely enabling provisions. If a state government wishes to make provisions for reservation to SC/STs in promotion, the state has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class.[42]

2007 Reservation in promotion in Uttar Pradesh

In 2007, Government of Uttar Pradesh introduced reservation in promotions. The policy specified reservation for SC/ST employees in the first stage of their promotion and that of the benefit of consequential seniority in successive promotions. However, this policy was challenged through a spate of petitions and subsequently Allahabad High Court on 4 January 2011 struck down the policy terming it as unconstitutional.[43]

The Allahabad High Court verdict was challenged in the Supreme Court through various petitions namely Civil Appeal No.s 2608 of 2011, 2622 of 2011 and many others. The Supreme Court on 27 April 2012, upheld the high court judgement. The bench consisting of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Dipak Misra rejected the government's argument on the ground that the it failed to furnish sufficient valid data to justify the move to promote employees on caste basis.[44][45]

The apex court reiterated the law laid down through various judgements by the Constitution benches in the M Nagaraj, Indra Sawhney and other cases wherein it was declared that reservation in promotions can be provided only if there is sufficient data and evidence to justify the need.[46]

Reservations in Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh is the state having the highest percentage of reservations in India in any form. 66.66% reservations are applicable in the state.

The reservation schedule in Andhra Pradesh is as follows-

  • Schedule Classes (A, B, C, D) – 15%
  • Schedule Tribes – 6%
  • Backward Classes (A, B, C, D) – 25%
  • Physically Handicapped (Blind, Deaf & Dumb and OPH) – 3%(1+1+1)
  • Ex-Service Men (APMS only) – 1%(0.5% in general)
  • Women- 33.33% (in all categories, means 16.66% in general category)

Total % of reservation - Minimum 66.66%

The reservation for women cuts across all classes and communities and is a horizontal and not vertical reservation. As such the total % of reservations has to be counted at 50% only; and that is in consonance with the Supreme Court dicta that reservations in general ought not to exceed 50% of the posts/seats if the right to equal opportunity to all without discrimination guaranteed under Article 16 is to be vindicated and respected.[citation needed][47]

Reservations in Maharashtra

Circle frame.svg

Reservations in Maharashtra as of 5 March 2015.

  Scheduled Castes (SC) (13%)
  Scheduled Tribes (ST) (7%)
  Other Backward Classes (OBC) (19%)
  Special Backward Classes (SBC) (2%)
  Nomadic Tribes - A (11%)
  Nomadic Tribes - B (2.5%)
  Nomadic Tribes - C (3.5%)
  Nomadic Tribes - D (2%)
  General (42%)

Maharashtra has 52% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs. The government of Maharashtra added Marathas (16%) and some Muslim subcastes (5%) to the reservation in 2014 but the move was rejected by Bombay High Court later.[48][49][50][51] If this reservation to Maratha implemented, it will leave the remaining 23% to General/Open category.[52][53]

Excluded from the reservation system

People in the following categories are not entitled to take advantage of the reservation system for Other Backward Classes – OBCs:

Categories for Rule of Exclusion Rule of Exclusion Applies to the following:
Constitutional posts The sons and daughters of the President of India, the Vice-President of India, Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Courts chairman, the members of Union Public Service Commission, members of the State Public Service Commission, Chief Election Commissioner, Comptroller Auditor-General of India or any person holding positions of a constitutional nature.[54]
Service Category: Those who are considered Group ‘A’/Class I officers of the All India Central and State Services (Direct Recruits) or those who are considered Group 'B'/ Class II officers of The Central and State Services (Direct Recruitment) or those who are employees in the Public Sector. Those who have parent(s) that are Class I or Class II officers, or both parents are Class I or Class II officers but one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation.[55] The criteria used for sons and daughters of Group A and B are the same for the employees of the Public sector.[54]
Armed forces including Paramilitary Forces (Persons holding civil posts are not included). The sons and daughters of parents either or both of whom is or are in the rank of colonel and above in the army or in equivalent posts in the Navy, the Air Force, and the Paramilitary Force. But that will hold true provided that-
  1. "the wife of an armed forces officer is herself in the armed forces (i.e., the category under consideration) the rule of exclusion will apply only when she herself has reached the rank of Colonel."
  2. "the service ranks below Colonel of husband and wife shall not be clubbed together"
  3. "if the wife of an officer in the armed forces is in civil employment, this will not be taken into account for applying the rule of exclusion unless she falls in the service category under item No.II in which case the criteria and conditions"[54]
Professional class and those engaged in Trade and Industry If a person has a high paying job such as physician, lawyer, chartered accountant, income tax consultant, financial or management consultant, dental surgeon, engineer, architect, computer specialist, film artist or other film professional, author, playwright, sports person, sports professional, media professional or any other vocations of like status. If the husband holds one of the above jobs and the wife doesn't then the husband's income will be taken into consideration and if the wife holds one of the above jobs then the wife's income will be taken into consideration.The income of the family as a whole will be taken into account because the whole point of the reservation system is to raise the social status of the people that belong to the SC's, ST's and OBCs and if a family's income is high already it is considered that it raises their social status as well.[54]
Property owners- agricultural, plantations (coffee,tea,rubber,etc.), vacant land and/or buildings in urban areas Sons and daughters of those who have irrigated land area which is equal to or more than 85% of the statutory ceiling area will be excluded from reservation. They would only be under reservation if the land is exclusively unirrigated. Those with vacant buildings can use them for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, hence they are not covered under reservations.[54]
Creamy layer Son(s)/daughter(s) of those who earn 6 lakh (600,000) or more annually for three consecutive years are excluded from reservation.[54]

Creamy layer and Indra Sawhney vs Union of India

The term creamy layer was first coined by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1975 in State of Kerela vs NM Thomas case, wherein he observed that “benefits of the reservation shall be snatched away by the top creamy layer of the backward class, thus leaving the weakest among the weak and leaving the fortunate layers to consume the whole cake”.[56][57] 1992 Indra Sawhney v Union of India judgment laid down the limits of the state’s powers: it upheld the ceiling of 50 per cent quotas, emphasized the concept of “social backwardness”, and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness. The nine-Judge Bench judgement also established the concept of qualitative exclusion, such as “creamy layer”.[58][59][60] The creamy layer is only applicable in the case of Other Backward Castes and not applicable on other group like SC or ST. The creamy layer criteria was introduced at Rs 1 lakh in 1993, and revised to Rs 2.5 lakh in 2004, Rs 4.5 lakh in 2008 and Rs 6 lakh in 2013.[61] In October 2015, National Commission for Backward Classes proposed the that a person belonging to OBC with an annual family income of up to Rs 15 lakh should be considered as minimum ceiling for OBC.[62] NCBC also recommended sub-division of OBCs into 'backward', 'more backward' and 'extremely backward' blocs and divide 27% quota amongst them in proportion to their population, to ensure that stronger OBCs don't corner the quota benefits.[63][64]

Institutions kept out of the purview of reservation

The following institutions have been kept out of the purview of Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006:,[65][66]

  1. Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai and its ten constituent units, namely:
    1. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay
    2. Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam
    3. Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology, Indore
    4. Institute for Plasma Research, Gandhinagar
    5. Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata
    6. Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata;
    7. Institute of Physics, Bhubaneshwar
    8. Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai
    9. Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad
    10. Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai
  2. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai
  3. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences, Shillong
  4. Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad
  5. Space Physics Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram
  6. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun
  7. Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Katra

On 27 October 2015 the Supreme Court directed the state and the Central governments to end the regional quota and to ensure that super-speciality medical courses are kept "unreserved, open and free" from any domicile status after the court had allowed petitions files by some MBBS doctors.[67]

Advances under the reservations system

The public sector jobs are divided into 4 categories: Class I (or Group A), Class II (or Group B), Class III (or Group C) and Class IV (or Group D). The Class I employees take up 2.2% of the public sector workforce, the Class II employees take up 3.3% of the public sector workforce, the Class III employees take up 66.8% of the public sector workforce, and the Class IV employees take up 27.2% of the public sector workforce.[68] Below are the percentages of the SC employees in the Central government:[68]

Class 1959 1965 1974 1984 1995
I 1.18 1.64 3.2 6.92 10.12
II 2.38 2.82 4.6 10.36 12.67
III 6.95 8.88 10.3 13.98 16.15
IV 17.24* 17.75 18.6 20.2 21.26*

* excludes sweepers

The above table shows that over time as the new laws for the reservation systems were passed employment of SC's in Class I, II, III, and IV public sectors increased substantially.

See also


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Laskar, Mehbubul Hassan. "Rethinking Reservation in Higher Education in India" (PDF). ILI Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 April 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  2. Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj."Shri Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj". History. Bahujan Samaj Party. Retrieved 20 October 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. 3.0 3.1 Bhattacharya, Amit. "Who are the OBCs?". Archived from the original on 27 June 2006. Retrieved 19 April 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Times of India, 8 April 2006.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Ramaiah, A (6 June 1992). "Identifying Other Backward Classes" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly. pp. 1203–1207. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 December 2005. Retrieved 27 May 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  5. "Implementation of Recommendations of Mandal Commission". Parliament of India. Retrieved 4 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  6. "The Untouchables of India". Praxis. Retrieved 20 October 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  7. Basu, Durga Das (2008). Introduction to the Constitution of India. Nagpur: LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa. p. 98. ISBN 978-81-8038-559-9.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  8. "Untouchability in the Far East". Retrieved 4 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  9. "India's "Untouchables" Face Violence, Discrimination". National Geographic. Retrieved 4 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  10. Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).
  11. 11.0 11.1 "Financial Support". University Grants Commission, India. Retrieved 20 October 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  12. Article 16 of the Constitution of India Section 4, Constitution of India (1950; in English). Retrieved on 8 September 2013.
  13. Article 46 of the Constitution of India Section 0, Constitution of India (1950; in English). Retrieved on 8 September 2013.
  14. Indra Sawhney And Ors. vs Union of India (UOI) And Ors. on 8 August 1991. New Delhi: Supreme Court of India. 1991.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  15. "The Struggle for Equality in India". Retrieved 2 February 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 "Affirmative Action and Peer Effects: Evidence from Caste Based Reservation in General Education Colleges in India" (PDF). Virginia University,Virginia. Retrieved 5 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  17. Arora, N.D. (2010). Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. p. 19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 ":: BCW Department-Govt of West Bengal, Reservation ::". Retrieved 2 February 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  19. 19.0 19.1 ":: Backward Classes Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal ::". Retrieved 2 February 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  20. </
  21. Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra, and Esther Duflo. 2004. "Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India." Econometrica 72(5): 1409–43.
  22. Beaman, Lori, Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, Esther Duflo, Rohini Pande, and Petia Topalova. 2009. "Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias?" The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4): 1497–1540.
  23. "Raising Female Leaders" J-PAL Policy Briefcase April 2012.
  24. "33% reservation for women in all Gujarat state government jobs". Deccan Herald. 13 October 2014. Retrieved 3 September 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  25. "Gujarat increases women's reservation to 33% in government jobs". dna. 14 October 2014. Retrieved 3 September 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  26. Viswanathan, S. (16 November 2007). "A step forward". Frontline. 24 (22).<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.[dead link]
  27. PTI. "Interim relief to AP on Muslim reservation". The Hindu. Retrieved 14 June 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  28. "Supreme Court to hear govt on Muslim quota". The Times of India. Retrieved 14 June 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  29. "Centre seeks SC's approval on Muslim reservation". timesofindia-economictimes. Retrieved 14 June 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  30. "SC backs quota for Muslims in Andhra Pradesh". Retrieved 14 June 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  31. "4.5% quota fails to impress Muslims in Uttar Pradesh". The Times of India. 23 December 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  32. "Election Commission stalls 4.5% sub-quota in poll states". The Times of India. 12 January 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  33. "Govt trying to befool minorities with quota: Sachar". 19 February 2012. Retrieved 20 February 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  34. "HC Quashes Centre's 4.5% Sub-Quota for Minorities". 28 May 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  36. "Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. ... on 16 November, 1992". Retrieved 14 June 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  37. "Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992". Retrieved 22 August 2012. (4) Reservation being extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action it should be confined to minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%." ,"Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as, once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to be brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  38. "Seventy Seventh Amendment". Retrieved 19 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  39. "Eighty Fifth Amendment". 4 January 2002. Retrieved 19 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  40. "Eighty First Amendment". 29 August 1997. Retrieved 19 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  41. "Eighty Second Amendment". Retrieved 19 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  42. 42.0 42.1 Justice S.H.Kapadia. "M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union of India & Others on 19 October, 2006". Retrieved 22 August 2012. 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.", "As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  43. "Promotion quota not legally sustainable: HC". The Times of India. 5 January 2011. Retrieved 10 August 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  44. "Supreme Court upholds High court's decision to quash quota in promotion". The Times of India. 28 April 2012. Retrieved 10 August 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  45. "SC quashes quota benefits in promotions". The Hindu. 28 April 2012. Retrieved 10 August 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  46. "U.P.Power Corp.Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 27 April 2012". Archived from the original on 10 August 2012. Retrieved 10 August 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  47. wew
  48. Omar Rashid. "Maharashtra scraps Muslim quota". The Hindu. Retrieved 14 June 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  49. "Devendra Fadnavis government scraps quota for Muslims in education". The Indian Express. 5 March 2015. Retrieved 14 June 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  50. "Govt will appeal on Maratha quota in SC next week". The Indian Express. 26 November 2014. Retrieved 3 September 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  51. "Why supreme court is right in denying unethical pleasure to Maharashtra govt -Governance Now". Governance Now. 18 December 2014. Retrieved 3 September 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  52. "Jobs, education quota for Marathas, Muslims cleared". Retrieved 26 June 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  53. "Maharashtra govt clears reservation for Marathas, Muslims". Retrieved 26 June 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  54. 54.0 54.1 54.2 54.3 54.4 54.5 "Judgement Writ Petition (Civil) No.930 of 1990 – Indira Sawhney Versus Union of India And others (16.11.1992)" (PDF). National Commission for Backward Classes. Retrieved 5 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  55. Office Memorandum,, pp. 7–8
  56. "Supreme Court Of India JUDGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  57. "SCOURGE OF RESERVATION: THE INVISIBLE CREAMY LAYER".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  58. "Explained: Order reserved".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  60. "Plea to reconsider judgment in Indra Sawhney case of 1992".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  61. "Raise 'creamy layer' to Rs 10.5 lakh: OBC panel".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  62. "OBC panel backs off, won't make 'creamy layer' reservation criteria stringent".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  63. "OBC sub-division, relaxing creamy layer is a must: NCBC tells govt".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  65. "Press Information Bureau English Releases". Retrieved 2 February 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  67. "No quota in higher medicine: SC". The Telegraph. 27 October 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  68. 68.0 68.1 "Chapter 3- An Assessment of Reservations (Pg 32)" (PDF). News. Dalit Bahujan Media. Retrieved 17 November 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>

s And Against Judicial Populism" by Arun Shourie, Publisher: Harper Collins India

External links