- In July 2022, an order issued by the General Education Department along with a prospectus issued by the Directorate was passed. It was put in place to regulate the admission to plus one Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools for the Academic year 2022-23.
- The G.O. stated that the earlier standard of 30% reservation in the name of management quota, apart from the minorities and Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) reservation followed for the plus two courses by higher secondary schools run by managements will be altered. Only 20% seats were to be reserved for management quota.
- The remaining 10% were to be allotted to students belonging to the community of the members of the management strictly on the basis of merit of the eligible students. However, if no community is announced by the management for the aforementioned purpose, the 10% community quota seats would be converted to general merit seats and filled through the Central Allotment Process (CAP).
- The decision was further appealed by the schools which did not wish to declare the community to which they belonged, Forward caste organisations including the NSS. Curtailing the community-based quota, the single bench ordered that the 10 percent seats will stand merged with general merit seats and this was upheld by the division bench as well.
- The Single Judge approved the main plea of the petitioners and concluded that community quota of 10% is constitutionally invalid.
- However, the second prayer of the school, i.e. the 10 percent community quota seats be transformed to the management quota seats, so as to enable them to enjoy management quota was rejected by the court.
- In the appeal, the appellants said that the court was wrong in the rejection of the 10% community based quota and that it should be added back to the management quota reservation.
- It was also argued that there was no need to declare the community reservation unconstitutional because it was not merely on the basis of community, religion, caste but also took into consideration the “rational criteria.”
- The concerned community had worked and expended their money and resources for creating the school and it was in acknowledgment of that initiative of the community to which the management belongs that the quota was created.
- The Division Bench composed of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was in concurrence with the Single Judge Bench.
- The Justices were of the opinion that the said 10% community reservation would just restore the earlier revoked Division Bench Judgement in Akhila Kerala Dheevara Sabha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [Original Application No 151 of 2020]
- The following two major aspects were considered by the Bench while formulating the Judgement: a. Validity of 10% Community Quota Reservation in Managements Other Than SEBC/OBC Communities and b. Validity of reduction of management quota from 30% to 20%
- In the court’s opinion, “As of now, the only constitutional provision, for preferential treatment or reservation for forward community, would be only within the narrow band width of the Economically Weaker Section quota (EWS quota), as enshrined in Article 15(6) of the Constitution of India, in the case of educational institutions and Article 16(6) of the Constitution of India in the case of appointments to services and posts. The State authorities have no case that the present reservation of 10% community quota, for managements other than minorities and backward class communities, could be traced, for justification , to any provision in the Constitution, including that for EWS quota.”
- The court further stated that the reservation quota for admission, other than that which may be justified under Article 15(4) or Article 30, in the case of SEBCs and minorities, as applicable, or in the case of the Economically Weaker Sections, cannot be said to gratify the test of reasonable foreseeability and that such reservation would clearly be in violation of the prohibitions against discrimination deemed necessary by Articles 15(1) and 29(2) of the Constitution of India.
- It was contended that instead of merging the disputed 10% with open merit category, it should be added back to the management quota as it is a drastic change in the ongoing consistent Policy of the state.
- Such changes ought to have only been done by the Council of Ministers of the State Government as per the Rules of Business of State Government under Article.166 of the Indian Constitution.
- However, the Division Bench replied saying that the decrease in the management quota is a prerogative of the policy which cannot be deemed arbitrary or unreasonable.
- The decision was taken in the spirit of public interest, especially as safeguard for the interests of the student community so that there is no dilution of admission on the basis of merit.
"Loved reading this piece by Raashi Saxena?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
