HC restrains Raje govt from implementing OBC quota bill

THE BILL HIKES QUOTA GIVEN TO THE OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES FROM 21% TO 26%. THE HIGH COURT SAID THE GOVT SHOULD INSTEAD SEEK AN AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION

JAIPUR: A division bench of Rajasthan high court on Thursday restrained the Vasundhara Raje governswment in Rajasthan from implementing the OBC Reservation Bill, 2017, which hikes the quota given to the Other Backward Classes from 21% to 26%.

The bench, comprising justice KS Jhaveri and justice VS Vyas, gave the order on a petition that contended that the bill amounted to contempt of the Supreme Court order and sought that the government be prohibited from carrying out contempt of court.

The HC was of the view that the state government must take permission from the Supreme Court before implementing the provisions of the new bill.

GP Kaushik, advocate for petitioner Ganga Sahai Sharma, said the high court had in 2016 struck down the bill in 2015 that sought to increase reservation for OBCS from 21% to 26%.

The state government had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the SC against the high court order and the apex court had directed that the status quo be maintained. It had allowed temporary appointments on 1,152 posts, subject to the SLP.

“The Supreme Court has fixed 50% reservation but despite this, the government has brought in the new bill increasing reservation to 54%. This is a violation of the apex court order so we have challenged it,” said Kaushik.

The court said that if the bill becomes an act, its implementation would create complications and lead to more litigations as government would give employment against vacancies which would create third party rights.

On October 26, the assembly had passed the Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointment and Posts in Services under the State) Bill, 2017, that provides 5% reservation to the Gurjar, Banjara, Gadiya Lohar, Rebari and Gadariya communities, taking the total reservation in the state to 54%.

The bench observed that the state government wanted to take a popular view in public and was trying to use the court as a shield to implement reservation.