Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu

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

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found. The reservation system in Tamil Nadu is much in contrast to the rest of India, not by the nature of reservation but by its history. When the first reservation protest hit New Delhi in May 2006, a contrasting quiet serenity was noticed in Chennai. Later, as the anti-reservation lobby gained in visibility in Delhi, Chennai saw quiet street protests demanding reservation. Doctors in Chennai, including doctors association for social equality (DASE) were in the forefront expressing their support for reservation in institutions of higher education run by the Central government.

Present practice

At present, reservation works out to somewhat less than 69%, depending on how many non-reserved category students are admitted in the super-numerary seats. If 100 seats are available, first, two merit lists are drawn up without considering community (reserved or unreserved), one for 31 seats and a second for 50 seats, corresponding to 69% reservation and 50% reservation respectively. Any non-reserved category students placing in the 50 seat list and not in the 31 seat list are admitted under super-numerary quota (i.e.) seats are added to the 100 for these students. The 31 seat list is used as the non-reserved open admission list and 69 seats are filled up using the 69% reservation formula (30 seats obc, 20 seats mbc, 18 seats sc and 1 seat st). The effective reservation percentage depends on how many non-reserved category students figure in the 50 list and not in the 31 list. At one extreme, all 19 (added from 31 to make the 50 list) may be non-reserved category students, in which case the total reservation works out to about (50+19)/119 or about 58%. At the other extreme, none of the 19 added to the 31 list may be from the non-reserved category, in which case no super-numerary seats are created and reservation works out to be 69% as mandated by the state law.

Present Reservation Scheme Details

The below details are provided as per Gazette of Government of Tamil Nadu Web link http://www.tn.gov.in/acts-rules/law/act_10to12_131_07jun06.pdf (link stand removed)

Main Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu Sub Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu Reservation Percentage for each Sub Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu Reservation Percentage for each Main Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu Category as per Government of India
Backward Class (BC) Backward Class (BC) - General 26.5% 30% Other Backward Class
Backward Class (BC) - Muslims 3.5%
Most Backward Class (MBC) 20%
Denotified Community (DCN)
Scheduled Castes Only Scheduled Castes 15% 18% Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
only for Arunthathiyar) 3%
Scheduled Tribes 1%
Total Reservation Percentage 69%

Timeline

File:TNReservationTimeline.jpg
Tamil Nadu Reservations

Sourced from a Rediff.com new article.[1]

1871

The Madras Census Report of 1871 had documented the fact that non brahminical Hindu and Muslim communities were eliminated from political prospects

1881

Need to take special interest in socially backward Entities was suggested

1882

Recommendation made to use “Education” as the criteria of backwardness.

1883

The Report of the Indian Education Commission states that practically no attention is paid to the problems of education of general people

1885

Financial support was provided in Madras to spread education

1893

Madras government have provided special educational attention for 49 different castes

26 July 1902

Chatrapati sahu Maharaja had given 50% reservation in his states for non Brahmins

1918

Upon receiving commission report for backward classes, mhaisur Government had announced reservations in education and jobs

1920

Sahu Maharaja had increased the reservation percentage from 50% to 90% in his states

1927

Caste was kept as primary factor in the recruitment process for Government jobs in Madras state. The allocation was made as follows: 2 out of 12 were allocated for Brahmins, 5 for non brahminical Hindus, 2 for Muslims, 2 for Anglo Indian’s and 1 for SC.

1928

The following classifications were made in the commission established by the Mumbai state Government:

Depressed Classes
Original and Hill Tribe
Other Backward Class
1931

Separate election Camps were declared for backward classes. Gandhi’s till death hunger strike (Poona, Sept. 24, 1932). Finally the agreement between Leaders of Caste-Hindus and of Dalits was agreed upon and is well known as Poona Pact.

1943

According to a memorandum submitted to the viceroy by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the First Law Minister, 8.33% of reservation in services in favor of the Scheduled Castes became effective.

1944

Education Department have announced scholarship for Scheduled Castes

1946

Reservation for Scheduled castes was increased from 8.33% to 12.33%

1946-48

Reservation for Schedule Castes was expanded to 16.66%

November 26, 1949

India accepts the Constitution, which includes the principle of reservations for SC & ST and has Article 340 directing State to constitute Backward Classes Commission to recommend similar measures.

1950

First amendment Act of the Indian Constitution)Article 340 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, granted reservation rights to OBC’s

November 27, 1951: Dr. Babsaheb Ambedkar resigns from the Central Cabinet of PM Nehru, citing deliberate delay in acting on Article 340 as one of the reasons.

1951

16% Reservation for SC/ST and 25% Reservation for OBCs introduced. Total Reservation Stood at 41%

1971

Sattanathan Commission recommended Introduction of "Creamy Layer" and altering Reservation percentage for Backward Classes to 16% and separate reservation of 17% to Most Backward Classes (MBCs).

DMK Government increased OBC reservation to 31% and Reservation for SC/ST has been increased to 18%. Total Reservation stood at 49%
1980

ADMK government excludes "Creamy Layer" from OBC reservation benefits. Income Limit for availing Reservation benefit has been fixed at Rs 9000 Per Annum. DMK and other Opposition parties protested the decision.

Creamy Layer scheme withdrawn and Reservation % for OBC has been increased to 50%. Total Reservation Stood at 68%
1989

Statewide Road Blockade Agitations were launched by Vanniar Sangam (Parent Body of Pattali Makkal Katchi) demanding 20% reservations in State Government and 2% Reservations in Central Government exclusively for Vanniyar Caste.

DMK Government Split OBC reservations as 2 Parts with 30% for OBC and 20% for MBC. Separate Reservation of 1% introduced for Scheduled Tribes. Total Reservation percentage stood at 69%.
1992
Supreme Court, in Mandal Judgement, reiterated that Reservation percentage cannot exceed 50% and "Creamy Layer" to be excluded from Reservation benefits.
1994
Court instructed Tamil Nadu Government to follow 50% reservations in the case filed by famous lawyer K. M. Vijayan on behalf of VOICE Consumer forum. Anandakrishnan, one of the members of Oversight committee, and then Anna University chairman announced that 50% reservation will be followed.
69% Reservation was included in 9th Schedule.
K. M. Vijayan was brutally attacked and maimed while leaving to New Delhi to file case in Supreme Court against inclusion of 69% reservation in 9th Schedule[2]
2006
Supreme Court asked Tamil Nadu Government to exclude Creamy Layer from Reservation benefits.

<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Main articles: 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests and Reservation policy in Indian Institutes of Technology
May 2006 -August 2006
Anti Reservation Protests intensified in many parts of India.[3][4][5]). Pro reservationists claim protests were intensified by media bias."[6] Tamil Nadu stayed calm. This is attributed to low percentage of Forward castes in Tamil Nadu (13%) as against 36% in India.
Alternative systems of Affirmative Action proposed by academics Prof. Purushottam Agrawal of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in the form of the Multiple Index Related Affirmative Action (MIRAA) - http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2006/june06/report3.html and by Prof. Satish Deshpande and Dr. Yogendra Yadav of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies - http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/22/stories/2006052202261100.htm
Dr. Sam Pitroda, Chairperson of the National Knowledge Commission [an advisory body instituted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh] came out in opposition to the proposed scheme to extend caste-based reservations to OBCs in institutes of Higher Education (http://www.indiadaily.org/entry/sam-pitroda-review-quota-policy/)
Dr. Pratab Bhanu Mehta, member-convener of the National Knowledge Commission resigns from his post in protest against the policy of reservations [Dr. Mehta's open letter of resignation - http://www.indianexpress.com/story/4916.html].
Indian Prime Minister appoints Oversight committee headed by former chief minister of Karnataka M. Veerappa Moily to suggest ways for implementation of reservations for Other Backward Classes and to suggest measures for increasing seats in educational institutions.
Oversight committee submits interim report and suggests phased implementation of reservations in central educational institutions for other backward classes.[1]
OBC reservation bill introduced in the Lok Sabha and referred to standing committee. It has not excluded creamy layer (rich and affluent amongst the other backward classes) from enjoying reservation benefits per supreme court judgement.[2]
Supreme court referred inclusion of 69% reservation in Tamil Nadu in 9th schedule to 9 member bench
September 2006 – 2007
Supreme court observed that central Government is trying to introduce quota without adequate data.
Oversight committee submits final report.
Supreme court upheld constitutional amendment for providing reservations in promotions for Scheduled castes and Tribes. It reiterated 50% limit and exclusion of Creamy layer from enjoying reservation benefits.[3]
Parliamentary standing committee recommended preference for non creamy layer (Poor among backwards) among backward classes from enjoying reservation benefits and comprehensive population survey to identify real backward people.[4]
Sachar committee submitted its report regarding backwardness of Indian Muslims. It made many recommendations for uplifting Indian Muslims. It indicated that current enrollment in educational institutions of non Muslim OBC's is almost equal to/close to their population. It also recommended alternative methodfor identifying real needy people.[5]
Union cabinet meeting rejected Parliamentary standing committee recommendations and decided to bring reservations bill by including creamy layer (Super rich) among other backward classes. Parliament passed OBC Reservations bill through voice vote.[6]
April 2008
On 10 April 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld the law that provides for 27% reservation for Other Backward Castes (OBCs) in educational institutions supported by the Central government, while ruling that the creamy layer among the OBCs should be excluded from the quota.[7][8]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Evaluating Tamil Nadu's 69% quota
  2. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ Anti-quota protests spread
  4. ↑ Nationwide anti-quota stir continues
  5. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ SC upholds OBC quota, keeps creamy layer out
  8. ↑ Supreme Court okays quotas in IIMs, IITs

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Reservation_policy_in_Tamil_Nadu&oldid=720603159"