Sunday, April 28, 2013
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
I endorse DR Chaudhry’s views in the article, “Reservation stir in Haryana” (March 23) that reservation was meant for a period of 10 years, hoping that deprived sections would climb up the social ladder and would no longer be in need of a quota crutch”.
The founding fathers’ vision of reservation policy was like that of the crutches lent to a limbless person until his limbs grow up and he stands on his own legs The time has come at such a pass, paradoxically, where we see that the erstwhile limbless person, now having fully-grown limbs, does not want to let go off the borrowed crutches, and the inherently able-bodied person has also started clamouring for the crutches.
It is time now to gradually phase out reservations. The concept of creamy layer in the SC/ST should be introduced. The income from any other source including salaries should be included while computing annual income.
Other modalities of affirmative action like financial help in the form of various scholarships, fee reimbursements, dedicated training programmes etc should be stressed on.
Some other criteria in addition to caste factor for entitlement to reservation should be put in place.
Dr RAJENDER GOYAL, Delhi
Friday, May 11, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
PS CAVEAT:- I have been misquoted by News Paper The Tribune in certain material aspects:-
- I never entitled my write up as “Jats vs non-jats as published. Rather the write up I had sent was entitled as “RESERVATION EMBROGLIO”.
- The words “Unless physically handcapped” in the last line are the concoction of the News paper in the guise of necessary editing. I had used the expression "Be that as it may be, we must be alive to the hard fact that reservation is a state's charity and it is highly unbecoming of any self-respecting person to live off anybody’s alms unless it is not at all possible to stand on one's own legs due to some insurmountable present or historical reasons".
It is crystal clear that expression "due to some insurmountable present or historical reasons" enables the extension of the reservation benefits not only to the physically handicapped persons but also to SC/ST/BC/OBC/Widows/victims of riots and natural calamities etc in genuine cases.
The political power is the magnet that attracts all other coveted temporal attributes like money, strength, status, recognition etc. in tow. In the context of jat agitation for reservation, we must know that after the formation of Haryana in November 1966, for most of the time, the Chief Minister of the state is from jat community. Intermittently, if there have been non-jat Chief Ministers, they were either a protégé of some powerful jat leader of the time or seen hankering after jat supports for survival. It bears out the pre-eminent position and stout political clout of jats in Haryana. Hence, it sounds quite queasy to hear the shrieks of demand for reservation from with in the jat community.
The quota based reservation policy a part of the affirmative action was aimed as a tool of egalitarianism. It now stands catapulted as a prized booty. To grab upon reservation- one has to engage with the state and take casualties. The fumes billowed out of Gujjar agitation in Rajasthan have hardly died down, now jats are up in the arms in Haryana demanding reservation and guess who can be the next? Obviously only those daredevils who can muster up enough strength to block national highways, vandalise the public and private property, jeopardize others’ lives, chase away the police and security personnel, sacrifice precious lives at the altar of reservation cauldron and above the all, enjoy overt or covert political patronage from either side of the fence! The common refrain of the protagonists of the jat reservation is that some other peasantry castes in Haryana already enjoy the benefits of the reservation, then, why jat should not be? It must be brought home to them that two wrongs do not make a right, they constitute a plumb blunder. The remedy lies in denotifying and disentitling any of such castes to reap the fruits of the reservation, if after an objective appraisal, found that they do not qualify for it.
Be that as it may be, we must be alive to the hard fact that reservation is a state's charity and it is highly unbecoming of any self-respecting person to live off anybody’s alms unless it is not at all possible to stand on one's own legs due to some insurmountable present or historical reasons. We should shun the path of confrontation and violence, and pledge to dedicate ourselves in the mission of nation-building to find our Country in the league of the developed countries in the next two decade.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Stand-off between Private School Owners and Haryana Government over free Education to Students Belonging to Poor Families
Rule 134A added vide notification No. S.O.3/H.A.12/1999/S.24/ 2007 dated: 19-01-2007 sets out that “the recognized private schools shall reserve 25% seats for meritorious poor students. The school shall charge fee from these students at the rate as charged in Government schools. The deficit of difference of fee shall be charged from the other students of the school”. It is noteworthy that the said rule 134A was again amended in the year 2009 vide notification No S.O.24/H.A.12/1999/S.24 (1)/ 2009 dated: 21-02-2009 to the effect that “the recognized private schools shall reserve 25% seats for meritorious poor students. The school shall charge fee from these students at the rate as charged in Government schools”.
Hence, it is unequivocally clear that after the amendment of 2009 in Rule 134, no burden shall shift on the other students (i.e. remaining 75% students) for the recovery of deficit of difference of fee. Moreover, section 12(2) of the RTE Act, 2009 mandates that the private unaided school providing free and compulsory elementary education shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the extent of per-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less, in such manner as may be prescribed provided that such reimbursement shall not exceed per-child-expenditure incurred by a government school provided further that where such school is already under obligation to provide free education to a specified number of children on account of it having received any land, building, equipment or other facilities, either free of cost or at a concessional rate, such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of such obligation. Furthermore, under the Act vide section12 (1) (c) private unaided Schools are under an obligation to admit in class I only, to the extent of at least twenty-five per cent of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education till its completion.
Thus, neither extant Rule 134A of Haryana Education Rule, 2003 as amended in the year 2009 is prejudicial to the interest of the students of well-off family as it does not shift any financial burden on them nor the RTE Act, 2009 obligates the private school to make the provision for 25% quota for admission all across the board other than Class1. However, to keep up the financial health of private unaided school, it will be desirable if Rule 134A is suitably amended so that Government compensate the expanses incurred by said schools in bringing home the objective of Rule 134A.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Defection in the garb of a merger: The protagonists of the merger need to revisit the tenth schedule of the Indian Constitution
There is a deluge of views emanating from distinguished persons on the raging controversy regarding the validity of changing of side in the garb of a merger by the five MLAs of Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) with the Indian National Congress in Haryana and the whipping boy is the tenth schedule of the Indian Constitution enshrining the anti-defection law. The self-fulfilling interpretation of the provisions of the anti-defection law by the legal eagles to suit a desired end, the suspicion on the non-partisanship of Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and lack of definitive judicial pronouncement on the subject has cast serious doubts on the efficacy of the anti-defection law, and accentuates the need to put the relevant law in its true perspective.
In fact, the para 4 of the tenth schedule of the Constitution enabling the merger of a political party is highly democratic envisaging a “collaborative and participatory working” between the political party concerned and its legislature party consisting of elected representatives in the State Legislature or Parliament whatever may be the case. The law strives to strike a fine balance between the interests of political party and the aspirations of the elected representatives (denoting the will of the people) comprising the legislature party concerned. The contents and intent of the said law lend emphatic credence to the inference that any decision for such merger can only be taken by the original political party in accordance with the rules and procedure as delineated in the constitution of that political party, and to take it further to any logical conclusion must find favour with not less than two-thirds of the elected members of the legislature party concerned. Only a well-considered decision in consequence of due deliberations in concert with each other will sanctify the merger. Hence, it is seemingly erroneous to contend that unilateral decision of the two-third members of the legislature party bypassing the political party ipso facto seals the fate of the latter.
The Apex Court in Ravi S. Naik (1994) while interpreting para 3 of said schedule (has since been repealed by the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003, w.e.f. January 1st, 2004) dealing with split in a political party had intoned that “even if there is 100% merger of the legislature party, without a split in the original party there can be no split”. It is noteworthy that said law of split enshrined in the repealed para 3 contemplated a lesser evil inasmuch as not immediately annihilating the existence of original political party. In consequence of split in original political party, the members of the breakaway faction constituted a separate political party and at the same time the original political party also retained its existence Where as in the present case under para 4 of the tenth schedule of the Constitution, the moment the merger is deemed to be valid, the existence of the original political party (read Haryana Janhit Congress) is wiped out entailing grave identity crisis for its founder & supremo Sh. Kuldeep Singh Bishnoi and other worthy members of the party not having countenanced to such a merger- a bizarre and unthinkable result which could never be intended by the anti-defection law as enshrined in the tenth schedule of the Constitution. Hence, as a corollary to above mentioned legal and factual position, it can be propounded that if split could not legally be effected in a political party under the law of split as was adumbrated in repealed para 3 of the tenth schedule of the Constitution without a split in original political party notwithstanding the fact that all members of the legislature party break away from the political party concerned , a fortiori, the merger of a political party into another political party becomes highly untenable just at the instance of members of the legislature party irrespective of their numbers in the absence of any decision of the political party concerned for such a merger.
However, courtesy to the peculiar constitutional scheme of things, and also relying on the hindsight, it can conveniently be prophesized that by the time any litigative churning-up will settle down and adjudication will attain finality, the term of the present legislative assembly will come to an end.
Since there is no direct authoritative ruling of the Apex Court on the para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the vacuum is being rampantly misused/abused by the unscrupulous political parties and politicians, hence, it will be in the fitness of the things to invoke Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court through a Presidential reference on the vexed question.
Dr RAJENDER GOYAL, Advocate and
Visiting Faculty in Law
CPJ College of Higher Studies & School of Law, Delhi
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Bare facedly, the said short listing criteria bear out that those candidates who are NET + Ph.D simpliciter do not find any place in any of the categories except the residuary Category-7 that reads as “All the candidates who do not fall in any of the above category if fulfill the eligibility conditions will be called for interview.” Conversely, the candidates who are NET + M.Phil simpliciter enjoy weightage/preferential treatment and are privileged to find place in Category-6 that reads as “NET/SLET with 2nd Class M.Phil” i.e. one notch above the residuary category-7 wherein only the NET + Ph.D simpliciter may find a place as per the prescribed criteria.
The above factual narration clearly shows that said short listing criteria has assigned M.Phil a superior place in derogation of Ph.D. that is highly unnatural, untenable, unreasonable and arbitrary.
It is further brought out that said short listing criteria assigning weightage/preferential treatment to M.Phil. in one manner or other seems to be unwarranted and undesirable as far as discipline of Law is concerned, keeping in view the fact that, no University (whether State or Private or Deemed) or any other Institute in and around Haryana offers M.Phil Course in Law.
Dr. RAJENDER GOYAL