Pages

Thursday, April 2, 2015

NDA Govt moves SC for review of verdict scrapping quota for Jats

The NDA Government has moved the Supreme Court seeking review of its March 17,2015 verdict setting aside a 2014 notification of erstwhile UPA regime to include  Jats in the central list of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in 9 States to accord quota benefits to them

NDA government moved the apex court days after a meeting a Jat delegation had with Prime Minister Narendra Modi who assured the community leaders that his dispensation would try to find a solution within the legal framework.

The NDA Government, in its review plea, has said "the Centre's power to make available quota for a community is not dependent on the advice of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

Note

The Jats were included in the central list OBCs for getting reservation in states like Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand

A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and RF Nariman, setting aside the March 4, 2014 notification that had enabled Jats to claim reservation in nine states, had said that "possible wrong inclusions" cannot be the basis of further inclusion, and reservation should be given only to the "most distressed".
It had referred to various constitutional schemes and the NCBC report and said the finding of the OBC panel that Jats do not deserve to be given quota benefits was "supported by good and acceptable reasons".
The court also said the NCBC had considered reports of state backward classes panels and other literature on the subject before recommending that Jats should not be included in the list of OBCs.

On March 31,2015 the SC had dismissed a plea of Jat students seeking benefits of reservation under OBC in the ongoing process of admission in post-graduate (PG) medical and dental courses.
"There is no vested right in favour of the applicants under the notification in question and the right have been subject to the result of the writ petition which had been decided by the impugned order of this court dated March 17, 2015," it had said.


No comments:

Post a Comment