The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has dominated {that a} single group can’t be positioned beneath two totally different reservation classes for schooling and employment.
Karnataka Excessive Court docket. (HT_PRINT)
Additionally Learn – Bengaluru’s street rage epidemic: Why retaining your cool is your greatest defence on metropolis roads
The ruling got here in response to a petition filed by V Sumitra, a resident of Kollegal taluk within the erstwhile Mysuru district, who challenged the state’s classification of the Balajiga/Banajiga group.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, delivering the decision just lately, directed the Karnataka authorities to uniformly classify the Balajiga/Banajiga group beneath Group ‘B’, each for academic and employment functions.
The courtroom noticed that the state’s current classification, which locations the group beneath Group ‘B’ for schooling (beneath Article 15(4)) and Group ‘D’ for employment (beneath Article 16(4)), was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Sumitra was appointed as a main faculty instructor in 1993 beneath the OBC quota as she claimed her caste belonged to Group ‘B’.
Nonetheless, in 1996, she obtained a discover stating that her group was categorised beneath Group ‘D’ for employment, rendering her caste certificates invalid for job-related reservation.
Additionally Learn – ‘That is what Karnataka has grow to be’: Blood on face, IAF officer recounts Bengaluru assault
Arguing that the constitutional intent behind Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is constant and geared toward making certain social justice for a similar deprived teams, she challenged the state’s classification, calling it contradictory.
Justice Govindaraj upheld her argument, stating, “The principle of equality before law under Article 14 encompasses equal treatment in the matter of reservations as well. The same community cannot be placed in different groups depending on the context — such a division is inherently discriminatory.”
The courtroom held that any such differential therapy violates constitutional protections and affirmative motion have to be uniform in its utility.
“If a community is identified as backwards for education, it cannot be treated differently when it comes to employment,” the decide noticed.
Declaring the twin classification “void ab initio”, the Excessive Court docket quashed the orders that had rejected Sumitra’s declare to Group ‘B’ reservation in employment.
It additionally directed the state to proceed her employment as a main faculty instructor, acknowledging her eligibility beneath the reservation group ‘B’.