Sunday, March 18, 2012

Delhi HC issues notices to Union and Delhi governments on the constitutional validity of introduction of a quota within quota

9.2.2012 (UNI) Delhi High Court today issued notices to Union and Delhi governments and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan on a PIL filed by an NGO, challenging the constitutional validity of introduction of a quota within quota in the 25 per cent reserved seats under the Right to Education Act, 2009 for children belonging to disadvantaged group and economically weaker sections (EWS). 

A bench comprising acting Chief Justice A K Sikri and Justice Rajeev Sahay Endlaw directed the respondents to file their reply by February 22. 

According to Ashok Agrawal, counsel appearing on behalf of NGO Social Jurist, the Kendriya Vidyalaya has reserved 25 per cent seats for SC/ST, EWS, disabled and others. A total of 10 seats were reserved under the 25 per cent quota. Out of these 10 seats 9 have again been reserved for SC/ST class leaving only one seat to be shared by EWS, handicapped and other disadvantageous groups, which is violation of the RTE Act. 

According to the RTE guidelines, the reserved category of 25 per cent should have equal weightage for SC/ST, OBC, disabled or children from EWS, and they form one homogeneous class and is entitled to equal treatment. No class can have preference over the other, the petitioner contended. 

The categories mentioned in Section 2(d) and 2(e) of RTE Act, 2009 form one group/class for the purpose of 25 per cent reservation of seats in KVS for children belonging to disadvantaged group and EWS in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of RTE Act, 2009 and cannot be legally sub-divided or sub-categorised but the KVS has introduced quota within quota thereby 90 per cent of seats in 25 per cent seats have been provided to SC/ST students, the NGO submitted. 

Such a sub-classification or micro classification of the categories mentioned in Section 2(d) of RTE Act, 2009 which already takes care of the SC/ST children is impermissible under the Constitution and contrary to the law, the NGO contended. UNI 

No comments:

Post a Comment