The University Grants Commission’s draft reservation policy sparked public outcry due to its provisions for de-reserving teaching positions earmarked for SCs, STs, and OBCs in colleges and universities. Consequently, both the UGC and the Ministry of Education were forced to issue clarifications on 28 January, stating that they do not intend to de-reserve posts in colleges and universities.
However, if that is the case, why did the UGC incorporate such a provision in the draft, titled ‘Guidelines for Implementation of the Reservation Policy of the Government of India in Higher Education Institutes (HEIs)’? It’s also worth exploring why the UGC’s de-reservation provisions are more problematic than the older government guidelines they are supposedly based on.
Logic behind de-reservation proposal
Teaching vacancies earmarked for SCs, STs, or OBCs can be declared unreserved if there aren’t enough candidates from these communities to fill the positions, according to the UGC draft guidelines. This proposal stems from a series of revelations made by the government’s response to parliamentary questions, including the fact that the country’s higher education institutions have failed to adequately implement reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in teaching positions, with over 42 per cent unfilled vacancies as of August last year. The government, however, has repeatedly emphasised that it is taking necessary measures to implement reservations.
In this backdrop, the UGC appointed a four-member expert committee comprising Dr HS Rana, Prof DK Verma, Dr. OP Shukla, and Dr GS Chauhan to prepare new guidelines for the effective implementation of reservations in higher education institutions. This initiative aimed to replace the UGG’s 2006 guidelines for the “strict implementation” of the government’s reservation policy in higher education institutions.
One question that arises about this committee is its composition. OP Shukla’s expertise as a former legal advisor to the Government of India and Chauhan’s role as UGC joint secretary justify their inclusion in the committee. However, the reasons are not clear for the selection of Rana, the director of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in Bengaluru, and Verma, the dean of School of Social Sciences at Dr BR Ambedkar University in Madhya Pradesh’s Mhow. Neither seems to have conducted any research work on reservations, and the UGC would do well to provide further clarification regarding the criteria for selecting expert committee members.
Nonetheless, this expert committee drafted the new guidelines, drawing heavily from the government’s 2016 reservation brochure, with a few tweaks.
De-reservation provision in 2016 brochure
Chapter 7 of the Government of India’s 2016 ‘Brochure on Reservation for SCs/STs and OBCs’ focuses on de-reservation. It begins with the statement that reserved vacancies “cannot be filled by a candidate other than an SC, ST, or OBC candidate, as the case may be” but then goes on to outline the procedure for exceptions to the rule in recruitments as well as promotions.
“There is a general ban on de-reservation of reserved vacancies in the case of direct recruitment,” the brochure reinforced. But it adds that “in rare and exceptional cases when a vacancy in a Group ‘A’ service cannot be allowed to remain vacant in the public interest, the administrative Ministry/Department may prepare a proposal for de-reservation.”
In such cases, the concerned ministry or department is required to consult the National Commission for SCs, STs, OBCs, as the case may be, for their comments. Finally, the ministry/department must submit the de-reservation proposal, along with the relevant commission’s comments, to a committee of secretaries comprising representatives from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Department of Social Justice, and the concerned department/ministry. This committee of secretaries takes the final decision on de-reservation.
Regarding de-reservation in promotions, the concerned ministry/department is required to send the proposal to the DoPT and the relevant commission. The post is de-reserved upon receiving their approval. However, if the DoPT and the commission fail to provide their comments within two weeks, the concerned ministry/department can proceed with de-reservation for promotion.
UGC’s de-reservation proposal
The UGC’s provisions for de-reservation are laid out in chapter 10 of the draft document, which was open for public feedback until 28 January (it was not available online as of 29 January).
Echoing the 2016 government brochure, it reiterates the “general ban” on de-reservation and then described procedures for instances where this can be done.
For direct recruitment, it suggests that a university may prepare a proposal for de-reservation in “rare and exceptional cases when a vacancy in a Group ‘A’ service cannot be allowed to remain vacant in the public interest”. However, it then goes on to give provisions for de-reserving posts in all groups, unlike the 2016 brochure.
“The proposal for de-reservation in the case of Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ should go to the Executive Council of the University, and in the case of Group ‘A’ or ‘B’, it should be submitted to the Ministry of Education, giving full details, for necessary approval. After receiving approval, the post may be filled, and reservation may be carried forward,” the UGC draft reads.
For de-reservation in promotions, authority rests with the Ministry of Education/UGC. However, such a proposal requires agreement from the university’s SC/ST liaison officer. In case of disagreement between the liaison officer and the appointing authority, the “advice” of the DoPT is to be “obtained and implemented”.
Also Read: India has entered a new era of reservation devoid of social justice
Why UGC’s guidelines are problematic
While the UGC’s draft guidelines purport to align with the government’s 2016 Brochure, a close comparative analysis reveals several discrepancies.
First, there is a discrepancy regarding the grade of posts that can be de-reserved. While the GoI brochure explicitly restricts de-reservation to critical Group A vacancies, the UGC guidelines extend it to all groups, including B, C, and D. Even if one entertains the argument that suitable candidates are not available for Group ‘A’ posts and thus they should be de-reserved, it is difficult to believe that SC/ST/OBC candidates would not be available for Group B, C, and D posts either. The provision of de-reservation for Group C and D posts raises serious concerns about the UGC’s intentions.
The second discrepancy lies in the de-reservation mechanism for direct recruitment. The GoI brochure established a robust system for this, involving consultations with the National Commissions for SCs, STs, or OBCs—constitutional bodies. It also ensured checks and balances by distributing decision-making across the DoPT and social justice department as well as the concerned ministry/department.
In contrast, the UGC draft replaces the constitutional national commissions with SC/ST/OBC university liaison officers. These officers are appointed by vice chancellors, who often instate their favoured personnel. University executive councils are typically filled with VC-appointed/nominated members. And since SCs/STs/OBCs are underrepresented in faculties, they are seldom part of the executive councils.
This structural issue in university governance contributes to the failure to implement constitutionally mandated reservations. Despite the de jure division of power in universities, the de facto operation often revolves around the VC. Consequently, there is legitimate concern that the provision of de-reservation might be extensively misused in universities. In view of this, the most prudent course of action for the UGC would be to delete the de-reservation provision from its proposed guidelines.
Arvind Kumar is a lecturer in the Department of Law and Criminology, Royal Holloway, University of London. He tweets @arvind_kumar__
(Edited by Asavari Singh)