Reservation cannot compromise quality of education, says SC
Reservation cannot compromise the quality of education, ruled the Supreme Court on Tuesday as it struck down Jharkhand government’s decision to reserve 100% teaching posts in government-run tribal district schools for locals.
Reservation cannot compromise the quality of education, ruled the Supreme Court on Tuesday as it struck down Jharkhand government’s decision to reserve 100% teaching posts in government-run tribal district schools for locals.
The top court was deciding a batch of appeals filed by tribal teachers in Jharkhand’s 13 scheduled tribe districts who were suddenly out of job after the Jharkhand high court in September 2020 set aside the state government’s July 14, 2016 notification issued by the Governor appointing tribal candidates as teachers in 13 tribal districts, including Ranchi.
The bench of justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna upheld the HC order and said, “The quality of education of the school going children cannot be compromised by giving 100% reservation in favour of the teachers of the same/some districts and prohibiting the appointment to more meritorious teachers. The HC had passed the order on a petition filed by non-tribal candidates who lost the opportunity to work in tribal area government schools.
However, instead of directing for the recruitment to be conducted afresh, the bench struck a balance by asking the state to revise the merit list with respect to the entire state based on the cut off obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT subject. By this, the Court ensured that government schools in scheduled and non-scheduled areas have a mix of teachers belonging to tribal and non-tribal categories.
Such a direction was passed by the Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 142 as the bench said, “In case appointments already made are not protected then thousands of schools in the state of Jharkhand would be without teachers and the ultimate sufferers would be the children of tribal areas.” The Court, however, clarified that the present direction was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case at hand.
The state government argued that the intended reservation was aimed to benefit tribal students as locals can teach them in a language that the children understand. The top court refused to accept this argument and said, “It may be true that so far as basic education (at the level of primary section) is concerned, it may help student at the primary level to be taught in their own tribal language. But the same principle may not be applicable when question is of providing education at higher level, i.e. above 5th standard.”
The decision impacted several candidates as the advertisement issued by the state was applicable for filling up 17,784 Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) posts (in tribal and non-tribal areas) out of which 13,398 posts were to be filled by direct recruitment and remaining 25% (4386 posts) were reserved for primary teachers. In all, 8423 posts were to be filled up in the 13 scheduled districts.
The non-tribal candidates claimed that such a notification amounted to violation of their fundamental right as it discriminated against them in matters of public employment based on their residence. The Court was guided by a Constitution bench decision in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v State of AP, decided on April 22, 2020 where a similar issue arose over providing 100% reservation to scheduled tribe candidates for recruitment as teachers in scheduled areas. This law was found to be unconstitutional by the five-judge bench of the top court.
Deciding the present matter in light of the Constitution bench decision, the bench found the Jharkhand government’s decision to fall foul of Article 16(2) as it affected fundamental rights of candidates belonging to non-scheduled areas. Besides, the decision was also found to violate Article 13 which prevents the state from passing any law that takes away fundamental rights of citizens as well as Article 35 which states that power to provide residential qualification for employment is a power vested in Parliament and not state legislatures.
The Court at the end of its 107-page judgment said that such a direction will meet the ends of justice by striking a balance between persons already appointed who may have to lose their appointment and also those candidates belonging to non-reserved areas who were deprived of an opportunity to serve in schools situated in tribal districts.
