Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open soon. Sign up here to be notified when the dates are announced.
Explainer: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019 was passed by Parliament today. It replaces an Ordinance that was promulgated in February 2019. The Bill brings about two major changes in reservation of teaching posts in central educational institutions. Firstly, it establishes that for the purpose of reservation, a university/college would be considered as one single unit. This means that posts of the same level across all departments (such as assistant professor) in a university would be grouped together when calculating the total number of reserved seats. Secondly, it extends reservations beyond Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), to include socially and educationally backward classes (OBC) and economically weaker sections (EWS).
In this post, we look at how the Bill will impact the reservation of teaching posts in central educational institutions.
How has teachers’ reservation been implemented in the past?
In 2006, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued guidelines for teacher reservations in central educational institutions.[1] These guidelines required central educational institutions to consider a university as one unit for the purpose of reservation. It stated that reservations would be calculated using a roster system specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension.[2]
However, the UGC Guidelines (2006) were challenged in the Allahabad High Court in 2017. The question before the Court was whether a university should be taken as a unit when applying the roster.[3] The Court found that individual departments should be taken as a unit for the purpose of reservation, instead of universities. It held that taking a university as a unit could result in some departments having only reserved candidates and others having only unreserved candidates. Following the judgment, departments were treated as a single unit for reservation at central educational institutions.
In March 2019, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Ordinance, 2019 was promulgated, and passed as a Bill in July 2019. The Bill overturns the Allahabad High Court judgment and reverts to the system where a university is regarded as one unit for the purpose of reservation.
Over the years, there has been deliberation on whether the university or department should be taken as a unit for reservation of teaching posts. This has to do with the manner in which the roster system [4]specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension is applied in both situations.
What was the roster system specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension?
The roster system calculates reservation based on cadre strength. A cadre includes all posts available to be filled within a unit, i.e. either department or university. For instance, all associate professor positions within a university or within a department would be considered a cadre.
At present, the roster system is applied in two ways, i.e., the 13-point system or the 200-point system. For initial recruitment in both systems, all posts in a cadre are numbered and allocated. This means that in a cadre with 18 posts, each post will be assigned a number from 1 to 18 and allocated to a particular category, i.e., either SC, ST, OBC, EWS or unreserved. Therefore, hiring of teachers for all posts takes place on the basis of this list.
However, there are two fundamental differences between the 200 point and 13 point systems.
When a university is taken as the unit for reservation, the 200-point system is used, as there tend to be more than 13 posts in a university. However, when a department is taken as a unit, the 13-point system or the 200-point system may be used, depending on the size of the department.
How are the number of reserved seats calculated in the roster system?
For both the systems, the number of seats reserved for SC, ST, OBC, and EWS is determined by multiplying the cadre strength with the percentage of reservation prescribed by the Constitution. The percentage of reserved seats for each category is as follows: (i) 7.5% for ST, (ii) 15% for SC, (iii) 27% for OBC, and (iv) 10% for EWS.
If the number of posts needed to be filled is 200, and the percentage of reservation for ST is 7.5%, we would use the following formula to calculate the number of reserved posts for that class:
Number of posts needed to be filled x percentage of reservation/100
= 200 x 7.5/100
= 15
Thus, the number of seats reserved for ST in a cadre with the strength of 200 posts is 15. Using the same formula, the number of seats reserved for SC is 30, OBC is 54, and EWS is 20.
How are these reserved seats distributed across posts?
To determine the position of each reserved seat in the roster systems, 100 is divided by the percentage of the reservation for each category. For instance, the OBC quota is 27%. Therefore, 100/27 = 3.7, that is, approximately every 4th post in the cadre list. Likewise, SC is approximately every 7th post, ST is approximately every 14th post, and EWS will be approximately every 10th post.
What is the difference in the application of the roster between the department and university systems?
To demonstrate the difference between the department and university systems, a hypothetical example of a university with 200 posts for associate professors, and nine departments with varying number of posts is provided below.
When the university is taken as a unit
|
If the university is taken as the unit for reservation, then the total number of posts for the reserved categories would be 119 (i.e., 30 for SC, 15 for ST, 54 for OBC, and 20 for EWS), whereas the number of unreserved (UR) seats would be 81. This is mentioned in Table 1. The method of calculation of these numbers is based on the roster system prescribed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension. |
Table 1: No. of posts reserved when university is taken as a unit
|
When departments are taken as separate units
|
If different departments of a university are taken as separate units for reservation, then the total number of posts for the reserved categories would be 101 (i.e., 25 for SC, 9 for ST, 49 for OBC, and 18 for EWS), whereas the number of unreserved (UR) seats would be 99. This is mentioned in Table 2. The method of calculation of these numbers is based on the roster system prescribed by the Explainer: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019 The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019 was passed by Parliament today. It replaces an Ordinance that was promulgated in February 2019. The Bill brings about two major changes in reservation of teaching posts in central educational institutions. Firstly, it establishes that for the purpose of reservation, a university/college would be considered as one single unit. This means that posts of the same level across all departments (such as assistant professor) in a university would be grouped together when calculating the total number of reserved seats. Secondly, it extends reservations beyond Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), to include socially and educationally backward classes (OBC) and economically weaker sections (EWS). In this post, we look at how the Bill will impact the reservation of teaching posts in central educational institutions. How has teachers’ reservation been implemented in the past? In 2006, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued guidelines for teacher reservations in central educational institutions.[1] These guidelines required central educational institutions to consider a university as one unit for the purpose of reservation. It stated that reservations would be calculated using a roster system specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension.[2] However, the UGC Guidelines (2006) were challenged in the Allahabad High Court in 2017. The question before the Court was whether a university should be taken as a unit when applying the roster.[3] The Court found that individual departments should be taken as a unit for the purpose of reservation, instead of universities. It held that taking a university as a unit could result in some departments having only reserved candidates and others having only unreserved candidates. Following the judgment, departments were treated as a single unit for reservation at central educational institutions. In March 2019, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Ordinance, 2019 was promulgated, and passed as a Bill in July 2019. The Bill overturns the Allahabad High Court judgment and reverts to the system where a university is regarded as one unit for the purpose of reservation. Over the years, there has been deliberation on whether the university or department should be taken as a unit for reservation of teaching posts. This has to do with the manner in which the roster system [4]specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension is applied in both situations. What was the roster system specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension? The roster system calculates reservation based on cadre strength. A cadre includes all posts available to be filled within a unit, i.e. either department or university. For instance, all associate professor positions within a university or within a department would be considered a cadre. At present, the roster system is applied in two ways, i.e., the 13-point system or the 200-point system. For initial recruitment in both systems, all posts in a cadre are numbered and allocated. This means that in a cadre with 18 posts, each post will be assigned a number from 1 to 18 and allocated to a particular category, i.e., either SC, ST, OBC, EWS or unreserved. Therefore, hiring of teachers for all posts takes place on the basis of this list. However, there are two fundamental differences between the 200 point and 13 point systems.
When a university is taken as the unit for reservation, the 200-point system is used, as there tend to be more than 13 posts in a university. However, when a department is taken as a unit, the 13-point system or the 200-point system may be used, depending on the size of the department. How are the number of reserved seats calculated in the roster system? For both the systems, the number of seats reserved for SC, ST, OBC, and EWS is determined by multiplying the cadre strength with the percentage of reservation prescribed by the Constitution. The percentage of reserved seats for each category is as follows: (i) 7.5% for ST, (ii) 15% for SC, (iii) 27% for OBC, and (iv) 10% for EWS. If the number of posts needed to be filled is 200, and the percentage of reservation for ST is 7.5%, we would use the following formula to calculate the number of reserved posts for that class: Number of posts needed to be filled x percentage of reservation/100 = 200 x 7.5/100 = 15 Thus, the number of seats reserved for ST in a cadre with the strength of 200 posts is 15. Using the same formula, the number of seats reserved for SC is 30, OBC is 54, and EWS is 20. How are these reserved seats distributed across posts? To determine the position of each reserved seat in the roster systems, 100 is divided by the percentage of the reservation for each category. For instance, the OBC quota is 27%. Therefore, 100/27 = 3.7, that is, approximately every 4th post in the cadre list. Likewise, SC is approximately every 7th post, ST is approximately every 14th post, and EWS will be approximately every 10th post. What is the difference in the application of the roster between the department and university systems? To demonstrate the difference between the department and university systems, a hypothetical example of a university with 200 posts for associate professors, and nine departments with varying number of posts is provided below. When the university is taken as a unit
When departments are taken as separate units
As can be seen in the above example, if departments are taken as separate units, there is a decrease in the number of reserved posts. The number of reserved posts decreased by five for SC, six for ST, five for OBC, and two for EWS. This example is corroborated by the special leave petition filed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in the Supreme Court against the 2017 order of Allahabad High Court. It demonstrates that the number of reserved seats in Banaras Hindu University (BHU) decreased when departments were taken as separate units. The number of reserved posts decreased by 170 for SC, 114 for ST, and 90 for OBC.[5] EWS was not included in the reservation system when the BHU numbers were calculated. Thus, the trade off between the two systems is as follows. On the one hand, when the university is taken as a unit there is a possibility that some departments would only have reserved candidates and others would have only unreserved candidates. However, when a department is taken as a unit, there is a decrease in the total number of reserved posts within the university.
[1] Circular No. F. 1-5/2006(SCT), University Grants Commission, 2006. [2] O.M. No. 36012/2/96-Esst. (Res), ‘Reservation Roster- Post based- Implementation of the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, July 1997, http://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02adm/36012_2_96_Estt(Res).pdf. [3] Vivekanand Tiwari v. Union of India, Writ petition no. 43260, Allahabad High Court, April 2017. [4] O.M. No.36039/1/2019-Estt (Res), ‘Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in direct recruitment in civil posts and services in the Government of India’, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/ewsf28fT.PDF. [5] Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court by Ministry of Human Resource Development, January 2019, as reported in Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-the-unit-in-teachers-quota-5554261/. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension. |
Table 2: No. of posts reserved when department is taken as the unit
Note: Number of posts in each department are hypothetical. |
As can be seen in the above example, if departments are taken as separate units, there is a decrease in the number of reserved posts. The number of reserved posts decreased by five for SC, six for ST, five for OBC, and two for EWS. This example is corroborated by the special leave petition filed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in the Supreme Court against the 2017 order of Allahabad High Court. It demonstrates that the number of reserved seats in Banaras Hindu University (BHU) decreased when departments were taken as separate units. The number of reserved posts decreased by 170 for SC, 114 for ST, and 90 for OBC.[5] EWS was not included in the reservation system when the BHU numbers were calculated.
Thus, the trade off between the two systems is as follows. On the one hand, when the university is taken as a unit there is a possibility that some departments would only have reserved candidates and others would have only unreserved candidates. However, when a department is taken as a unit, there is a decrease in the total number of reserved posts within the university.
[1] Circular No. F. 1-5/2006(SCT), University Grants Commission, 2006.
[2] O.M. No. 36012/2/96-Esst. (Res), ‘Reservation Roster- Post based- Implementation of the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, July 1997, http://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02adm/36012_2_96_Estt(Res).pdf.
[3] Vivekanand Tiwari v. Union of India, Writ petition no. 43260, Allahabad High Court, April 2017.
[4] O.M. No.36039/1/2019-Estt (Res), ‘Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in direct recruitment in civil posts and services in the Government of India’, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/ewsf28fT.PDF.
[5] Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court by Ministry of Human Resource Development, January 2019, as reported in Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-the-unit-in-teachers-quota-5554261/.
On Monday, December 4, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha disqualified two Members of Parliament (MPs) from the House under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (better known as the anti-defection law) for having defected from their party.[1] These members were elected on a Janata Dal (United) ticket. The Madras High Court is also hearing petitions filed by 18 MLAs who were disqualified by the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly in September 2017 under the anti-defection law. Allegations of legislators defecting in violation of the law have been made in several other states including Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Manipur, Nagaland, Telangana and Uttarakhand in recent years.[2] In this context, we explain the anti-defection law.
What is the anti-defection law?
Aaya Ram Gaya Ram was a phrase that became popular in Indian politics after a Haryana MLA Gaya Lal changed his party thrice within the same day in 1967. The anti-defection law sought to prevent such political defections which may be due to reward of office or other similar considerations.[3]
The Tenth Schedule was inserted in the Constitution in 1985. It lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection by the Presiding Officer of a legislature based on a petition by any other member of the House. A legislator is deemed to have defected if he either voluntarily gives up the membership of his party or disobeys the directives of the party leadership on a vote. This implies that a legislator defying (abstaining or voting against) the party whip on any issue can lose his membership of the House. The law applies to both Parliament and state assemblies.
Are there any exceptions under the law?
Yes, legislators may change their party without the risk of disqualification in certain circumstances. The law allows a party to merge with or into another party provided that at least two-thirds of its legislators are in favour of the merger. In such a scenario, neither the members who decide to merge, nor the ones who stay with the original party will face disqualification.
Various expert committees have recommended that rather than the Presiding Officer, the decision to disqualify a member should be made by the President (in case of MPs) or the Governor (in case of MLAs) on the advice of the Election Commission.[4] This would be similar to the process followed for disqualification in case the person holds an office of profit (i.e. the person holds an office under the central or state government which carries a remuneration, and has not been excluded in a list made by the legislature).
How has the law been interpreted by the Courts while deciding on related matters?
The Supreme Court has interpreted different provisions of the law. We discuss some of these below.
The phrase ‘Voluntarily gives up his membership’ has a wider connotation than resignation
The law provides for a member to be disqualified if he ‘voluntarily gives up his membership’. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted that in the absence of a formal resignation by the member, the giving up of membership can be inferred by his conduct.[5] In other judgments, members who have publicly expressed opposition to their party or support for another party were deemed to have resigned.[6]
In the case of the two JD(U) MPs who were disqualified from Rajya Sabha on Monday, they were deemed to have ‘voluntarily given up their membership’ by engaging in anti-party activities which included criticizing the party on public forums on multiple occasions, and attending rallies organised by opposition parties in Bihar.[7]
Decision of the Presiding Officer is subject to judicial review
The law initially stated that the decision of the Presiding Officer is not subject to judicial review. This condition was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1992, thereby allowing appeals against the Presiding Officer’s decision in the High Court and Supreme Court.[8] However, it held that there may not be any judicial intervention until the Presiding Officer gives his order.
In 2015, the Hyderabad High Court, refused to intervene after hearing a petition which alleged that there had been delay by the Telangana Assembly Speaker in acting against a member under the anti-defection law.[9]
Is there a time limit within which the Presiding Officer has to decide?
The law does not specify a time-period for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification plea. Given that courts can intervene only after the Presiding Officer has decided on the matter, the petitioner seeking disqualification has no option but to wait for this decision to be made.
There have been several cases where the Courts have expressed concern about the unnecessary delay in deciding such petitions.[10] In some cases this delay in decision making has resulted in members, who have defected from their parties, continuing to be members of the House. There have also been instances where opposition members have been appointed ministers in the government while still retaining the membership of their original parties in the legislature.[11]
In recent years, opposition MLAs in some states, such as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, have broken away in small groups gradually to join the ruling party. In some of these cases, more than 2/3rd of the opposition has defected to the ruling party.
In these scenarios, the MLAs were subject to disqualification while defecting to the ruling party in smaller groups. However, it is not clear if they will still face disqualification if the Presiding Officer makes a decision after more than 2/3rd of the opposition has defected to the ruling party. The Telangana Speaker in March 2016 allowed the merger of the TDP Legislature Party in Telangana with the ruling TRS, citing that in total, 80% of the TDP MLAs (12 out of 15) had joined the TRS at the time of taking the decision.[12]
In Andhra Pradesh, legislators of the main opposition party recently boycotted the entire 12-day assembly session. This boycott was in protest against the delay of over 18 months in action being taken against legislators of their party who have allegedly defected to the ruling party.[13] The Vice President, in his recent order disqualifying two JD(U) members stated that all such petitions should be decided by the Presiding Officers within a period of around three months.
Does the anti-defection law affect the ability of legislators to make decisions?
The anti-defection law seeks to provide a stable government by ensuring the legislators do not switch sides. However, this law also restricts a legislator from voting in line with his conscience, judgement and interests of his electorate. Such a situation impedes the oversight function of the legislature over the government, by ensuring that members vote based on the decisions taken by the party leadership, and not what their constituents would like them to vote for.
Political parties issue a direction to MPs on how to vote on most issues, irrespective of the nature of the issue. Several experts have suggested that the law should be valid only for those votes that determine the stability of the government (passage of the annual budget or no-confidence motions).[14]
————————————————————
[1] Parliamentary Bulletin-II, December 4, 2017, http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=57066 and http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=57067.
[2] MLA Defection Politics Not New, Firstpost, March 13, 2017, http://www.firstpost.com/politics/bjp-forms-govt-in-goa-manipur-mla-defection-politics-not-new-telangana-ap-perfected-it-3331872.html.
[3] The Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985, http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend52.htm.
[4] Report of the Committee on Electoral Reforms, 1990, http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Dinesh%20Goswami%20Report%20on%20Electoral%20Reforms.pdfand the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution (NCRWC), 2002, http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/ncrwcreport.htm.
[5] Ravi Naik vs Union of India, 1994, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/554446/.
[6] G.Viswanathan Vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras& Another, 1996, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1093980/ and Rajendra Singh Rana vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others, 2007, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1620629/ and Parliamentary Bulletin-II, December 4, 2017, http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=57066.
[7] Parliamentary Bulletin-II, December 4, 2017, http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=57066.
[8] Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachilhu and Others, 1992, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1686885/.
[9] Sabotage of Anti-Defection Law in Telangana, 2015, https://www.epw.in/journal/2015/50/commentary/sabotage-anti-defection-law-telangana.html.
[10] Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha Vs Kuldeep Bishnoi & Ors., 2012, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45034065/ and Mayawati Vs Markandeya Chand & Ors., 1998, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1801522/.
[11] Anti-Defecton Law Ignored, November 30, 2017, http://www.news18.com/news/politics/anti-defection-law-ignored-as-mlas-defect-to-tdp-trs-in-andhra-pradesh-and-telangana-1591319.htmland It’s official Minister Talasani is still a TDP Member, March 27, 2015, http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Telangana/2015-03-27/Its-Official-Minister-Talasani-is-still-a-TDP-member/140135.
[12] Telangana Legislative Assembly Bulletin, March 10, 2016, http://www.telanganalegislature.org.in/documents/10656/19317/Assembly+Buletin.PDF/a0d4bb52-9acf-494f-80e7-3a16e3480460; 12 TDP MLAs merged with TRS, March 11, 2016, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/12-tdp-mlas-merged-with-trs/article8341018.ece.
[13] The line TD leaders dare not cross, December 4, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/the-line-td-leaders-dare-not-cross/article21257521.ece
[14] Report of the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution, 2002, http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/ncrwcreport.htm, Report of the Committee on electoral reforms, 1990, http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Dinesh%20Goswami%20Report%20on%20Electoral%20Reforms.pdf and Law Commission (170th report), 1999, http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/lc170.htm.
