The State Reservation Policy (SRP) notified by the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel Department (N0.PER.222/71/138, Dated Shillong, the 12th January, 1972) and the Roster System notified through Office Memorandum dated 10th May 2022 based on the judgment of Meghalaya High Court (Case no. WP(C) No. 394 of 2021; Date of order: 05.04.2022 in Zanera R. Marak & Ors vs State of Meghalaya & Ors) is in the eye of the storm in the recent days and is only expected to be intensified. While the Hon’ble High Court has rightly asked for a Roster System based on reservation quotas for different categories as it exists in all Central government establishments and other states, it never asked for a cut-off date or the like or how far back the roster system would be made applicable.
Apparently, the State government last year has mischievously attempted to apply the Roster System retrospectively ignoring the provisions of Clause 2 of the State Reservation Policy which clearly states that “If 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”.
Further, in the same clause it says, “But the deficiency in the number of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes 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 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”.
The Office Memorandum dated 10th May 2022 which was published in the Gazette of Meghalaya on May 26, 2022 stated in ‘Clause D-1 – In order to prepare the Reservation Roster, names of all the candidates holding the post as on the date of notification of this OM starting with the earliest appointee, since the time the Reservation Policy came into effect, subject to information being available, shall be filled up in the Reservation Roster against the point in the Roster’.
Furthermore, ‘Clause B-6’ of the Office Memorandum stated that ‘After every recruitment cycle, an account shall be noted in the Reservation Roster indicating the representation of Khasi and Jaintia, Garo, Other STs and SCs and details of backlog reserved vacancies, which will be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle’.
Clearly, the Office Memorandum has been designed with malafide intention to benefit the Garo community retrospectively, ignoring the provisions of the Clause 2 of the aforesaid Reservation Policy while framing the Roster System which is going to kill the job prospects of the Hynniewtrep people (read as Khasis and Jaintias as per the State Reservation Policy).
I failed to fathom what were our elected representatives representing Khasis, Jaintia and Ri-Bhoi districts doing when the Office Memorandum was issued last year. That was the right time to denounce it and more so ask for the review of the State Reservation Policy in toto before the proposed retrospective implementation of the Roster System which is against all jurisprudence and established procedures.
The Meghalaya High Court has only directed the State government to prepare a Roster System so that posts can be identified against each category to avoid any anomalies in the filling up of vacant posts in existence and for future recruitments. Indeed, the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya has cleared stated in its judgment dated 03.04.2023 while rejecting the PIL of the Greneth M. Sangma vs the State of Meghalaya & Ors on the year of applicability of the Roster System without going into the merit of the case and left it to the legislature and the executive, particularly to the new Assembly for thorough discussion.
There are several important aspects that require immediate redressal. Firstly, the Office Memorandum dated 10th May 2022 requires immediate review by the State government. Unless Clause 2 of the State Reservation Policy is amended by the State Assembly, how the roster can be prepared because both contradict each other. While the State Reservation Policy allows filling up of the vacancies by other categories in case of non-availability of suitable candidates from the respective reserved classes in any particular year and deficiency can be carried forward only for a year, the Roster System enables the carry forward of deficiencies for an infinite period.
The question is, can the Office Memorandum dated 10th May 2022 supersede the basic tenets of the State Reservation Policy -the Clause 2? Certainly not. As an addendum to the State Reservation Policy, the Office Memorandum No PER 272/72/5 dated 18th Dec., 1972 Clause 2.2 allowed ‘combined reservation of 80 per cent of the post in favour of Garos and Khasi-Jaintias instead of a separate reservation of 40 per cent each for Garos and Khasi-Jaintias, respectively at the district level. Why not do the same at State level? Obviously, a Roster System will also be required at the District level as well.
The Office Memorandum dated 10th May 2022 ‘Clause F’ has very conveniently reproduced the provisions of Office Memorandum No PER 272/72/5, dated 18th December, 1972 (Clause 2.1 and 2-2) to tackle this issue. Furthermore, another addendum to the State Reservation Policy through Office Memorandum No PER.222/72/163, dated 28th May, 1974 allowed the fulfillment of 40 per cent reservation to Garos even by candidates outside Meghalaya. How will the Roster System address this issue?
Apparently, there are serious flaws in the State Reservation Policy and subsequent Office Memorandums on the same and mostly glaringly, the Roster System, the Office Memorandum dated 10th May 2022 to be implemented retrospectively. Khasi-Jaintia-Ri-Bhoi districts comprises of about 14 lakh of the total population (2011 census), bigger geographical areas spread over seven districts and consist of 36 Assembly constituencies whereas, Garo hills has a total population of less than 10 lakh (2011 census), smaller geographical area comprising of five districts and 24 Assembly constituencies. Yet, the State Reservation Policy allotted 40 per cent reservation of vacancies for them and 40 per cent reservation for Khasis-Jaintias. Is this justified?
Even in 1971, the Khasi-Jaintia population was about 45 per cent and Garos about 32 per cent, yet this unfair ratio was implemented but was partly compensated in the short term by the presence of Clause 2 of State Reservation Policy. Only God knows the compulsion of our predecessors to accept this flawed State Reservation Policy, apart from not getting chief ministership and getting a State without proper demarcation of boundaries with Assam which is haunting the State till today. At best, it can be described as a short-sighted vision of our predecessors.
But why should the compulsions and short-sightedness of our predecessors impact the life of Hynniewtrep people of the 21st Century? Let us not allow ourselves to make the same mistake our predecessors did by keeping mum on the State Reservation Policy and the Roster System. The current youth and the future generations will curse us if we keep quiet today. We have to call a spade a spade. The contradictions in the State Reservation Policy vis-à-vis the Roster System being implemented now needs to be rectified.
Lastly, if at all the reservation need to be done tribe-wise in the State, keeping the Meghalaya’s youth of 21st Century in mind and their job prospects in the State government, then let’s do it uniformly by dividing the 80 per cent based on population size and prepare the roster accordingly and retrospectively. This, of course, is not realistic similar to the existing 40:40 ratio. There is no tribal dominated State in the country where reservation is divided tribe-wise, be it 3 or 33 recognised tribes. Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram all have a combined reservation of ST except for minor tribes. Even Manipur has 31 per cent combined reservation for STs.
I think all elected representatives cutting across party lines from Jaintia Hills, Ri-Bhoi and Khasi Hills have to demand the immediate modification of the Office Memorandum dated 10th May 2022 and concurrent review of the State Reservation Policy. Similarly, all the student bodies, NGOs, civic societies, social thinkers and the general public have to forget their differences and demand the same in one voice because it concerns the job prospects of the entire Hynniewtrep people.
Election is over and we all took what was in the offerings. It’s time to put our heads together; specifically on State Reservation Policy and the associated Roster System so that the right and fair share of the State’s available jobs of our Khasi-Jaintia youths of today and future generations is protected. We have to be ready for hard and prolonged democratic and peaceful agitations across the State to force the government of the day to review its decisions and get ready for any consequences. In one voice, we have to demand to convene a Special Assembly Session only to discuss and review the State Reservation Policy and associated Roster System which has also been demanded by the Voice of the People Party (VPP).
No matter which formula is adopted, any Reservation Policy and the associated Roster System cannot be made applicable retrospectively but only prospectively. I am not against our Garo brothers and sisters. They and their leadership are doing everything to protect their interests and I want our people and our leadership to protect the interest of Khasi-Jaintias at all costs in the similar manner. All policy being implemented in our State cannot be seen favouring one tribe against the rest and has to be seen as fair and justified to all Khasi-Jaintias of the State of Meghalaya as well
(The author teaches in NEHU, Shillong)
