Salem Steel Plant OBC Employees' Welfare Association (Affiliated to AIOBC): August 2011

History of OBC Reservation

Under Article 340 of the Indian constitution it is obligatory for the government to promote the welfare of the Other Backward Classes.

The first Backward Classes Commission headed by Shri kaka kalelkar in 1953, and Mandal Commission headed by Shri B.P.Mandal in 1980 has given many useful recommendations for the welfare of Other Backward Classes. The population of OBC’s which includes Hindus and Non-Hindus was around 52% of the total population according to the commission.

27% of reservation was recommended owing to legal constraints that the total quantum of reservation should not exceed 50%.

One of the most important recommendations is that all private sector undertakings which have received financial assistance from the government in one form or another should be obliged to recruit personnel on the reservation basis. But, even after 2 decades we are unable to get it inspite of our continuous efforts.

On August 7 1990, the then Prime Minister Shri. V P Singh announced that his National Front Government was going to implement Mandal Commission recommendations in Education and jobs, inspite of strong agitations from Forward Communities. In fact, Shri V P Singh lost his power due to his mandalisation policy. The federation remembers him on this special day for his service rendered to this community.

One needs to understand the psychology of opposition of reservation to OBC’s.

When the jobs are nowhere and everything is gone private, then why are the upper castes angry with the reservation for Backward Communities?

The fact is that seats for dalits were rarely fulfilled and we have seen huge backlog. There has been no protest. It was easier to curtail the protest of the dalits because of their numbers and social background.

Now the reservation for backward communities being a reality, the powerful backward communities will hit and break the bone of upper castes. That is the fear of this community. They know that there are enough students from these communities who will join great institutes of technology and management.

The Supreme Court of India on April 10 2008 upheld the government’s move for initiating 27% OBC quotas in Govt. funded Institutions. But it is necessary for the Govt. at this juncture to exclude the creamy layer policy from the reservation quota.

To be strong in the present scenario, it is more important to show our strength and unity of OBC’s. AIOBC association work towards social justice. AIOBC is giving hand and helping us in this regard.

The issue of under-representation of the socio-economically deprived, discriminated backward caste and classes in the spheres of education, employment, administration and commerce is burning at this stage. I appeal all the member associations to work hard towards the success of the reservation policies.

Let us truly reform our society and work for a truly democratic India, where every community participates in power and every person gets their reservation in respective areas in proportion to their shares in population.

Friday, August 26, 2011

LIC OBC staff meet at Chennai

Fifty LIC employees from several branches under Kadapa LIC division in Rayalaseema left by a bus to attend general body meeting of LIC OBC Employees Welfare Association slated at Chennai on August 27 and 28. National Commission for BCs chairman Justice M.N. Rao will be the chief guest. Prominent BC leaders across the country will participate.

“Minimum eligibility marks for OBCs can be fixed at between 45 and 50”

The Supreme Court on Thursday, while interpreting the Constitution Bench's decision in the ‘OBC case,' said: “The minimum eligibility marks for the OBCs can be fixed at any number between 45 and 50, at the discretion of the institution. Or, where the candidates are required to take an entrance examination and if the qualifying marks in the entrance examination are fixed as 40 per cent for the GC, the qualifying marks for OBC candidates should not be less than 36 per cent.”

The appellant, P.V. Indiresan, wanted Jawaharlal Nehru University to continue the procedure it adopted during 2008-09 and 2009-10, under which it would fix the minimum eligibility marks for the GC, and for the OBC it would decide the marks after all the GC seats were filled by fixing the 10 per cent below the marks of the last GC candidate admitted.

Upholding the Delhi High Court's decision rejecting this procedure, the Bench said: “Such a procedure was arbitrary and discriminatory, apart from being unknown in regard to admissions to educational institutions. The minimum eligibility marks for admission to a course of study is always declared before the admission programme for an academic year is commenced. Whatever be the marks so prescribed, it should be uniform to all applicants and a prospective applicant should know, before he makes an application, whether he is eligible for admission or not.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran said: “The cut-off procedure followed by Jawaharlal Nehru University during those days had the effect of rewriting the eligibility criteria, after the applications were received from eligible candidates. No candidate who fulfils the prescribed eligibility criteria and whose rank in the merit list is within the number of seats available for admission can be turned down by saying that he should have secured some higher marks, based on the marks secured by some other category of students. A factor which is neither known nor ascertained at the time of declaring the admission programme cannot be used to disentitle a candidate to admission who is otherwise entitled to admission.”

Pointing out that the procedure adopted by the university had resulted in OBC seats reverting to the GC, the Bench said: “If the total number of seats in a course is 154 and the number of reserved seats for the OBCs is 42, all the seats should be filled with OBC students in the order of merit from the merit list of OBC candidates possessing the minimum eligibility marks prescribed for admission (subject to any requirement for entrance examination). When an eligible OBC candidate is available, converting an OBC reservation seat to the GC is not permissible.”

Clarifying the words, ‘cut-off marks,' used in the October 2008 judgment, the Bench said: “The words, ‘cut-off marks,' are used three times in the judgment. In the first instance, the use of the words, ‘extent of cut-off marks,' would refer to the ‘minimum eligibility marks;' in the second instance, the use of words, ‘maximum cut-off marks for OBCs,' would refer to the difference between the minimum eligibility/qualifying marks for the GC and OBCs, and such difference should not be more than 10 per cent of the minimum eligibility/qualifying marks for the GC; and thirdly ‘cut-off marks for GC' would refer to the minimum eligibility for the GC, if there was an entrance examination.”

The Bench said: “In regard to admissions for 2011-12, if any Central educational institution has already determined cut-off marks for the OBCs with reference to the marks secured by the last candidate in the GC and has converted the unfilled OBC seats to the GC seats and allotted the seats to the GC, such admissions shall not be disturbed. But where the process of conversion and allotment is not completed, the OBC seats shall be filled with OBC candidates.”

The Bench said: “If in any Central educational institution, the OBC reservation seats remain vacant, such institutions shall fill the said seats with OBC students. Only if OBC candidates possessing the minimum eligibility/qualifying marks are not available on the OBC merit list, the OBC seats shall be converted to GC seats.”

The Bench extended the last date for admission till August 31 as a special case to facilitate filling of vacant OBC seats.

Merit list OBC seats can't be given to general category: Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that ‘cut-off' marks referred to the minimum marks — either eligibility or qualifying marks — required for admission to a course, and it is notified to candidates in advance. The court also said that the seats reserved for the Other Backward Classes cannot be converted to the general category (GC), if OBC candidates are available on the merit list.

A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, interpreting the Constitution Bench's decision in the ‘OBC case,' said: “The order, dated October 14, 2008, means that where the minimum eligibility marks in the qualifying examinations are prescribed for admission, say as 50 per cent for the GC candidates, the minimum eligibility marks for the OBC candidates should not be less than 45 per cent (that is 10 per cent less of 50).”

The Bench said: “The minimum eligibility marks for the OBCs can be fixed at any number between 45 and 50, at the discretion of the institution. Or, where the candidates are required to take an entrance examination and if the qualifying marks in the entrance examination are fixed as 40 per cent for the GC, the qualifying marks for OBC candidates should not be less than 36 per cent.”