This ad will auto close in 10 seconds

SC moved on OBC quota law in educational bodies

Last Updated: Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 20:06

New Delhi: A petition was on Thursday moved in the Supreme Court contending that the Delhi High Court has made a wrong interpretation of the apex court judgement on the
quota law in educational institutions that 10 percent difference in cut-off marks in admission for OBC candidates and general category was bad in law.

The petition filed by PV Indiresan, former director of IIT, Chennai, has sought a stay of the September 7 verdict of the High Court which held that universities are entitled to
only fix minimum eligibility criteria for admission in the reserved category at maximum 10 percent below the minimum eligibility criteria fixed for general category.

The academecian has challenged the High Court ruling which said "the OBC candidates to avail of reservation provided for them under the Central Educational Institutions
(Reservations in Admission) Act, 2006, are not required to, in admission test or in the eligibility exam, secure marks within the bandwidth of 10 percent below the cut-off marks of the last candidate admitted in general (unreserved) category".

The High Court had pronounced its verdict on a petition challenging the procedure adopted for admission by Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the Centre for providing reservations to the OBCs.

It had declared the procedure followed by them as bad.

Senior advocate Harish Salve and advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the petition before a Bench comprising Justices RV Raveendran and HL Gokhale which
decided to hear it in routine course.

They pointed out to the Bench that the High Court ruling was in a "complete departure" from the October 14, 2008, judgment of the Constitution bench of the apex court.

The apex court had made it clear that there must be a maximum 10 percent difference between the cut-off marks of general category and that of OBC reserved category in
admissions to educational institutions.

The petitioner said a substantial question of law arose for consideration as to how the High Court could have gone behind the judgement of the Constitution Bench of apex court and given an opposite finding.

Whether the words "cut off" can ever be interpreted to
mean "qualifiying marks", as has been done by the High Court,
the petition said contending that whether the result of the
interpretation by the High Court would result in lowering the
standards of education in India.


First Published: Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 20:06
comments powered by Disqus