SHILLONG:
Meghalaya is in a tizzy over the controversial State Reservation Policy and the roster system, with many expressing apprehensions over the possible repercussions of its implementation on recruitment.
The issue became the talk of the town just a few weeks ago when Voice of the People Party (VPP) threatened to hit the streets if the matter was not discussed in the Assembly.
Since then, the reservation policy and the roster system implementation have been making daily headlines, with political parties, leaders, and pressure groups from both Khasi–Jaiñtia and Garo Hills engaging in a war of words.
The Meghalayan provides an insight into the entire gamut of affairs.
WHAT IS THE RESERVATION POLICY?
The word “reservation” means an arrangement to have something held for one’s use. In this case, it is a system of affirmative action that provides disadvantaged groups representation in education, employment, government schemes, scholarships and politics.
Columnist Rev Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh writes, “The Reservation Policy of Meghalaya can be considered as the historical agreement made between the two dominant tribes, the Hynñiewtrep and A‧chik, and for the benefit of other smaller tribes and minority communities in the State as well.”
MEGHALAYA’S RESERVATION POLICY
The government resolution dated January 12, 1972, reads: “…keeping in view the inadequacy of representation of these communities in the services under the autonomous State of Meghalaya in terms of their population that, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency in administration, the following reservation shall be made in favour of Schedule Tribes and Schedule Castes…(a) there shall be a reservation of 40% of vacancies in favour of Khasi and Jaintia (b) There shall be reservation of 40% of vacancies in favour of Garos (c) there shall be reservation of 5% of vacancies in favour of any other Schedule Tribes of Autonomous Districts of Assam now within Meghalaya and Schedule Castes of Assam.”
The other 15% is reserved for the general category. This policy is a series of office memoranda notified by various governments in the past.
WHY THE SUDDEN DISAPPROVAL OF THE ROSTER?
In 2022, the Meghalaya High Court issued an order directing the state government to implement the roster systemto ensure that the policy is being adhered to in letter and spirit.
After the 2023 Legislative Assembly elections concluded, the VPP, along with pressure groups, objected to the 2022 directive based on the perception that the roster would be retrospectivelyapplied from 1972 when the reservation policy came into effect.
Contrariwise, Garo pressure groups maintained that the government should implement the roster system as per the Court’s directive, arguing that this would help clear backlogs, especially the return of posts rightfully reserved for Garos that they never received in the past.
CONFUSION SURROUNDS THE ISSUE
However, the complex system has rattled all heads. In the main judgement, the Meghalaya High Court does not explicitly call for “retrospective” action by word, which has captured the imagination of the Opposition.
The fear is that, if the reservation roster is implemented retrospectively, numerous backlogs would surface.This could have wide-scale ramifications on the present recruitment process, wherein backlogs will need to be cleared, tipping the scale in favour of whichever reserved category has lost the most posts.
In 2022 particularly, Chief Minmister Conrad K Sangma’s administration could not fill vacant posts in different government departments because of the court’s injunction restraining further recruitment until the roster was in place.
At the time, Sangma termed the implementation of the roster a “massive exercise,” adding that the issue has festered since the reservation policy was created – effectively since statehood, which Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee in April 2022 described as a “deplorable state of affairs”.
On May 10, 2022, the State Cabinet approved the roster system for the implementation of the State Reservation Policy.
HAS THE RESERVATION POLICY BEEN FOLLOWED SINCE 1972?
In a conversation with The Meghalayan, a retired IAS officer, who served as law secretary to the Government of Meghalaya (name undisclosed on request) for almost 35 years, said, “To be honest, there are many departments that no longer have the records.” The task of tracking every recruitment over the past 50 years would be gargantuan, if not impossible, and whether the policy was followed in letter and spirit is open to interpretation.
Quoting the Office Memorandum notified on December 18, 1972, the retired officer said it was not possible to strictly adhere to the reservation with respect to posts and vacancies at the district level. Hence, it was notified that, in respect of posts at the district level, where the incumbents are not likely to be transferred outside the district of the original posting, there will be a combined reservation of 80 per cent of the posts in favour of Garos and Khasi-Jaiñtias instead of a separate reservation of 40 per cent each.
“Now some people might say we were being biased in allocating 80 per cent for a particular reserved category, but we had to look at the practicality of things – at the end of the day, we had to fill up the posts,” he said.
CLAUSE NO. 1.2: JUSTICE DELAYED OR IMPRACTICAL SOLUTION?
Heads have clashed specifically on clause No. 1.2 in the reservation policy, which states: “If a sufficient number of suitable candidates for filling up the reserved vacancies is not available from the respective classes in any particular year, then such vacancies will be available to others. But the deficiency will be carried forward to the next recruitment year and made good in the recruitment of that year provided that the reservation on account of the deficiency shall not be carried forward for more than one year. After the expiry of the second year, these reservations shall be treated as lapsed…”
Referring to the last line, the groups mentioned the clause contradicts the supposed “retrospective” effect which many claimed was mentioned in one of the public interest litigations, even though the court’s original judgment contains no such reference.
“This is a deadlock. I don’t know how they are going to go about it, but from a personal point of view, I feel the government should call an all-party meeting and invite all the stakeholders; talk it out and come up with an amicable solution. Because to me, 50 years is a long time. We have to look forward. Let us forgive and forget,” the retired officer said.
He also added that insisting on gathering data of 50 years could leave room for its manipulation, “because like I said – there are many government departments that have no records of 1972.”
A TUSSLE OVER PERCENTAGES
The VPP has also objected to the 40:40 reservation for the Khasi-Jaiñtia and Garo categories, stating it does not reflect their respective numbers.
VPP president Ardent Miller Basaïawmoit believes that the majority, who are Khasi–Jaiñtia, should logically deserve a greater share of reservation, leading to a “biased” and “unjust” breakdown. Since then, Basaïawmoit has demanded a strict ethnic reservation that follows the state’s demographic breakdown.
President of the Hynñiewtrep Youth Council, Robertjune Kharjahrin, a lawyer by profession, echoed similar views, saying the government must follow the demographic proportions or provide 30:30:30 representation for Khasis, Jaiñtia and Garos each or club all three native tribes into one Schedule Tribe category.
HOW THE PAST KILLED THE FUTURE
Political analysts looked at the issue from a different perspective. According to them, leaders of yesteryears felt it was an appropriate policy implemented as a ‘temporary’ measure subject to change in future, but remained so.
A veteran politician, who wished to remain unknown, but was present for the creation and observed the implementation of the policy in the 70s, said the 40:40 policy was meant to help Garos, who were severely underprivileged at the time, to grow academically, socially, economically and politically.
There were attempts in the later years to pressurise the government to amend the policy, but lack of awareness among the public and the “adamant” attitude of leaders then poured cold waters on the attempts. “Blame it on our leaders at the helm of affairs. Our efforts were dashed to the ground – everything became silent and the matter was shoved to the cold storage,” he said.
LEGISLATURE AND ASSEMBLY TO DECIDE ON CUT-OFF DATE
After much ado, the Meghalaya High Court issued another order, its most recent, dated April 3, 2023, entrusting the legislative and the executive with the right to decide on the cut-off date, clearing doubts over the “retrospective” narrative.
“However, it does not appear that any decision has yet been taken as to a cut-off date or the like or how far back the roster system would be made applicable. These are policy matters that are best left to the legislature and the executive and upon a firm stand being taken, it will be open to any citizen affected thereby to question the propriety thereof in accordance with law”, the Court said.
Now, all eyes are set on the government and the Assembly on what decision, after years of indecisiveness, will be taken to balance the prospects of future applicants and deliver justice to those who lost their chance in the past.